Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/2003MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 17, 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 3, 2003 5. Public Headngs None 6. Unfinished Business a. Home Occupation License - Hair Salon (2697 Pinkspire Lane) New Business a. Training Session - Review of Roles and Responsibilities (Patrick Kelly and Melinda Coleman) b. Zoning Code Amendment - New Mixed Use Distdct (Hillcrest Village) 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. March 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Monahan-Junek b. March 31 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler (changed from March 24) c. April 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 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. 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. o The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. 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 3, 2003 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL III. Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Commissioner Jackie Monahan-Junek Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts requested to move item 6. c. for the Home Occupation License to item 6. a. Mr. Roberts also added item 6. d. 3. 10-foot setback variance from right-of-way for Schmelz Countryside VW/Saab. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the agenda with changes. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for Wednesday, February 19, 2003. Commissioner Trippler said a word was missing in the second to the last paragraph on page 21. It should read I guess you don't know too much at this point then. Chairperson Fischer requested that an explanation be added for the reasons for the nayvotes on page 23 for the Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Project. Chairperson Fischer and Commissioner Mueller both voted nay based on the higher density recommended in the staff report verses the lower density recommended in the motion. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -2- Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for February 19, 2003, with the noted changes. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstentions - Desai, Dierich V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Van Dyke Village Town houses (Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Bruce Mogren is proposing to build a 24-unit town house development on the vacant property on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. This development, called Van Dyke Village, would be for work force housing for Iow and moderate- income families. There would be on-site management to help monitor and run the property. Mr. Roberts said the proposal would have four, six-unit townhouse buildings. Each town house would have a one car attached garage and a patio area. There also would be 30 open parking spaces. The buildings would have exteriors of horizontal-lap siding with cedar trim boards. Mr. Roberts said this is a good site for town houses. It is between two collector streets (Cope Avenue and County Road B), is near an arterial street (White Bear Avenue) and is near shopping and other services. In addition, this property would not be a great site for a commercial or retai' business as it is hidden from the main commercial area along White Bear Avenue. Mr. Roberts said as proposed, the 24 units on the 3.56-acre site means there would be 6.74 units per gross acre. This project density is higher than the currently allowed density of six units per acre but significantly less than the maximum density standard (10.4 units per acre) in the comprehensive plan for town houses in high-density residential areas. However, for consideration of the increase in density and the PUD, the city should require the developer to construct the town houses with the same or a better level of architectural design and landscaping elements as Emma's Place. This would include the view of the development from Van Dyke Street and the size and quantities of the landscape materials. Mr. Roberts said many of the neighbors who contacted him expressed concerns about the proposed housing and the residents who would live there. Work force housing is for Iow-to- moderate income residents. To qualify as a resident, Ramsey County sets the income levels based on the household size and their percentage of average median income of the Twin Cities area. Foi' example, a three-person household at the 50 percent median income level has an annual income of about $34,500 per year and a three-person household at the 60 percent income level earns about $41,000 per year. These could be people working at the Maplewood Mall, Saint John's Hospital, teachers, police officers or others starting out in their careers. It is these types of working families that this development would serve. Mr. Roberts said the proposed 24 town house units would have a mix of sizes and bedrooms- 1~' would have 3-bedrooms and 8 would have 2-bedrooms. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 03-03-03 Mr. Roberts said as a note of comparison, Emma's Place is supportive housing. This is housing for persons with many needs and support services. This may be help with chemical dependency, money management issues, abusive relationships or other problems. This is not the type of housing Mr. Mogren is proposing with these town houses. Mr. Roberts said a concern of some of the neighbors is unsupervised children hanging around the neighborhood. The neighbors told him that there have been more children loitering in the area and looking for places to play in their neighborhood since Emma's Place opened in 2002. This is a potential concern with children from any development. Monitoring this depends on parental and management supervision. The developer is proposing a tot-lot and on-site management to help with this situation. Mr. Roberts said traffic-generation data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that residential units like townhomes generate an average of seven vehicle trips per day. In this case, with 24 town houses, there would be about 168 vehicle trips per day generated by the site. In a 12-hour period, the 168 vehicle trips would mean an average of 14 vehicles per hour or one vehicle (on average) every 4.3 minutes. This would not be a large increase to the number of vehicles added to this neighborhood nor would it cause a large impact to the area. Commissioner Pearson said he does not see anything on the plans for a storm shelter, he asked what those residents would do if there was a tornado? Mr. Roberts said he did not know if the applicant was required to have a storm shelter. He said as an example, you can build slab on grade for a townhome and not be required to have a storm shelter. Mr. Roberts said maybe the applicant, Mr. Mogren would like to answer that. Commissioner Trippler said in the Comprehensive Plan on page 44, it shows the lots as high- density multiple dwelling. Mr. Roberts said he had received Mr. Trippler's message earlier in the day and he checked into that. That is an error in the Comprehensive Plan. It should be shown as medium density, the red coloring did not come out correctly. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the Comprehensive Plan should read medium density all the way clown to County Road B then? Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if this proposal was going to be rental property? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Dierich said on page 32 of the Comprehensive Plan R-3 (M) says you can go to seven units per acre. She asked if any zoning changes were necessary? Mr. Roberts on page 33 of the Comprehensive Plan the chart breaks it down by the different types of units. On the townhome line, the third line down that is six units per acre, the seven units per acre is for manufactured homes. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -4- Commissioner Dierich asked staff if they went to a higher density could Mr. Mogren increase the density if staff changes this to R-3 (H)? Mr. Roberts said no, Mr. Mogren could not increase the density. He said if this is approved by the city council, the commission would be approving a PUD and the PUD has a specific site plan with 24 units on it. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if it takes 4 city council votes for a PUD and for a zone change it takes 5 city council votes? Mr. Roberts said it takes 3 city council votes for a PUD and 4 city council votes for a comprehensive plan change. Commissioner Rossbach said he is concerned that the city is selling property to a developer and then working with the developer to develop a plan, all before it ever becomes public. He said he would like to know more how that process works. Mr. Roberts said it's varied from site to site and project to project. An example would be the lots that were sold on Burke Circle and now the homes are being built that were reViewed last year by the planning commission. The city council made the decision to sell the lots, they put a plan together and got the property prepared and the street rebuilt as part of the English Street project. It was a sealed bid put out for any developer or buyer to buy the lots. Whoever had the high bid that met the requirements were awarded the bid. In this case, it was a matter of working with staff, Ramsey County and trying to find a developer that the city had a comfort level to develop a plan for Iow to moderate income housing. The city was bound to do such a project because the city bought the property from Ramsey County at a reduced price because the city had made a commitment to build the Iow to moderate-income housing. Because of that, the city was trying to find a developer that could work with Ramsey County and their funding and financing requirements and that had a track record with the city. Mr. Roberts said he did not know if there were other developers contacted or not, but Mr. Mogren could speak about the history regarding this. The other development that will be handled similarly will be the Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Area Project. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the density was for Emma's Place? Mr. Roberts said the density for Emma's Place is just under 6 units per acre. Commissioner Pearson said in purchasing this land from Ramsey County, would their requirements have allowed an R-1 (S) zoning in that area for owner occupied? Mr. Roberts said he thinks the only stipulation was for Iow to moderate-income housing. Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned about having one-car garages. He said hardly anybody only has one car. He said if most of the people have two cars there would not be enough parking for any visitors. He asked where do you foresee the overflow parking would end up? Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 03-03-03 Mr. Roberts said there is enough room in front of the garage door for a car to be parked outside the garage, which was not included in the outside parking calculations and one car parked in the garage. Plus the additional 30 parking spaces for visitors above and beyond the parking spots in the driveway. Commissioner Mueller said there are many single-family homes that only have a one-car garage plus the one parking spot in their driveway and they do fine with that space. Chairperson Fischer said she did not find a condition referring to the addition of a sidewalk on this property. Mr. Roberts said the sidewalk is listed as a condition for the CDRB to act on. If the planning commission wanted to add a condition stating that, it would be best inserted on page 8 of the staff report, item 3. under the engineering approval as item c. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Bruce Mogren, residing at 10116-67th Lane North in Grant City, the applicant for Van Dyke Village, addressed the commission. He said they don't have an issue with the sidewalk. Clear addresses are a great idea and they will do that. He has a telephone call into the Assistant Police Chief to join the crime-free multi-house organization. He thinks that would be a very positive thing for this development. His cousin is working with him on finalizing the landscaping requirements. There are other changes sent out by staff that the applicant has already complied with. They are asking for the additional two units over the density over the proposed density. They chose to go with a mixture of two and three bedroom units. They looked at a mixture of three and four bedroom units. He has worked with the architect and these plans have been built in the past and have proven to be very effective. He said he likes that they have two stories in the middle and the single level on the ends. Mr. Mogren thinks architecturally it is more attractive laid out this way. He said regarding the issue about a storm shelter, he would ask his architect about that. He said this is 75% of the units are for work force housing and 25% of the units are for market rate rental. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Mogren if he was considering having the single level units handicapped accessible? Mr. Mogren said what ever the building inspector requires is what he has proposed at this time. Commissioner Dierich said she would strongly encourage Mr. Mogren to think about building the handicapped accessible units. Mr. Mogren said he checked with the architect and four units will be handicapped accessible. He has already received one telephone call from a person in a wheel chair with spina-bifida who is getting married this fall and has requested a handicapped accessible unit if this proposal gets approved. Commissioner Rossbach said in recent actions this commission has recommended in two different properties that the development be within the existing density that is allowed on the lot. He would like to hear an explanation about what it is about this property that has changed since the city has put the R-3 (M) designation on it that would warrant it now being able to support a higher density. F' Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -6- Mr. Mogren said it looks like it is currently zoned business commercial. He asked if it is the law that it has to change to medium density? Mr. Roberts said business commercial by conditional use permit would allow multiple-family housing the question becomes the density. What Mr. Rossbach is saying is the current plan allows medium density up to 6 units per gross acre. Commissioner Rossbach said what he was asking was what has changed in the city since the city has determined that the density that is currently on the property went into effect what has changed to make it so now that property can support a higher density then what was put on it originally? Mr. Mogren said sometimes there are mitigating circumstances in this particular case when you're taking a property in one zoning and putting it into another zone. There are some amenities with this particular design and they are not going with all large units. They are going with two and three bedrooms instead of three and four bedrooms. That is his request. The other reason he wants the additional units is because of the on-site management. This makes it more affordable to have the on-site management; even at that it is very expensive. He knows it impacts the neighborhood to have the additional units but it takes years to pay for the on-site management. He would be co-managing these units and if the manager is not there to handle a problem he can send over one of the eight people that work for him. Because he works so close and because he has 260 senior housing units in the area is one of the reasons this area is so attractive to him. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Mogren what work force housing rent would be? Mr. Mogren said he would like Todd Urness to answer that question. Mr. Todd Urness, 2630 Countryside Drive West Orono, addressed the commission. He said 75% of these proposed units will be work force housing and they have restrictions. The rent for work force housing will be $760 for a two,bedroom unit and $870 for three bedrooms. The other 25% of these units will have no restrictions and their rent will be higher. Commissioner Mueller asked why these are rental units and not units for sale? He asked if that was an arrangement with Ramsey County or is it just Mr. Mogren's decision to have these units for rent instead of to own? Mr. Urness said both answers are correct. To make it affordable for sale is very difficult if not impossible. These are very nice rental units proposed. They have attached single car garages, in-house heat and air conditioning units and in-house washer and dryer. Compared to a shared large laundry room or no laundry room, one building control for heat and air conditioning and having no garages available only a parking lot to park in. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if they know the vehicle capacity of White Bear Avenue in the proposed area and what is the current and projected traffic count? Mr. Ahl said the 1998 ADT north of County Road B traffic count is 28,000 and the traffic count for 2020 is 39,900. The typical capacity of a road with that many drive lanes and turning lanes such as that of White Bear Avenue is 45,000 ADT. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -7- Commissioner Monahan-Junek she asked Mr. Mogren the size of the tot-lot on page 26 in the staff report? Mr. Mogren said he is not sure of the size of the tot lot yet. He is going to get together with the playground installer and Bruce Anderson from the Parks and Recreation Department for input before a final plan can be completed. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said the reason she is asking is because there have been some concerns voiced regarding kids running loose at Emma's Place. She said if there was more space within the housing area the children could be contained in their own areas instead of running around outside the commons area. Younger kids use the tot lot but the older kids need someplace to be as well, this may help alleviate the problem somewhat. The following people spoke regarding the Van Dyke Village Town houses: 1. John Glasow at 2271 Craig Place in Maplewood. He said Van Dyke Street cannot handle the traffic and you are just going to add to the traffic problems. A few blocks away they are building nine town homes on a larger piece of land then what this is. The Maple Hills town homes that are being built off Larpenteur Avenue, the density was reduced because they were afraid of the increased traffic on Larpenteur Avenue because it is only two lanes. You are increasing the density here and it is uncalled for. He proposes the city change this area to nine senior cottages or maybe storage garages. This area cannot handle the traffic increase. Putting in 24 town homes is way out of line. People making wages of $31,000 - $48,000 can afford a much nicer town home then what you are proposing here such as the nine town homes down the street (Dearborn Meadows). Driving in a funeral procession moves faster then driving on White Bear Avenue and you are going to add to the congestion problem. In the spring during the city's clean up day at the Maplewood Community Center you cannot drive down Van Dyke Street for three hours or longer. 2. Pat Myckleby at 2220 Craig Place in Maplewood. She has lived in this city all of her life. She does not like the way people get informed of proposals in Maplewood. She knows the rule is within 350 feet but feels this is not a large enough area to notify people. She lives on Craig Place and they have a group home on that street that none of the residents were notified of. There is also a homeless shelter. Then Emma's Place was built. She spoke to the city council and she was told it was going to be a place like Van Dyke Village, town homes for work force housing. It ended up being for people with drug and alcohol problems. It is just troubled people and kids causing problems and crime all over the neighborhood. She does not think people are going to want to rent these town homes because they are next to Emma's Place. There is crime and problems there and she thinks it is sad what is happening to this community. She hears Mayor Cardinal won an award for affordable housing in Maplewood. Big deal, how much are the people supposed to take? There are too many of these types of homes in the area. It would be okay if there were good and decent people that didn't steal, commit crimes, throw trash in our yards, cause problems on the bus, harass the children and steal things from them. But currently the kids can't even walk in that area without being harassed. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -8- 3. Jeff Ruebel at 1849 County Road B East in Maplewood. He has a problem with Emma's Place and the bad element that is already there and he is afraid it is going to feed into the Van Dyke Village town homes. He thinks that whole area will be nothing but trouble. He is also concerned about the traffic in the area. The crime has increased significantly. Cars race up and down Van Dyke Street and County Road B. He can't believe the police department said in the staff report that the police calls haven't increased significantly since Emma's Place was built. Since October 2001 he personally has called the police 25 times and has a list at home. He has spoken to Chief Thomella personally and Chief Thomella knows Jeff by name he has called so many times. There is too much housing in that area. He thinks if you put in a house for Habitat for Humanity the people would take more pride in their homes. In North St. Paul there is a habitat home and it is very well taken care of and the lawn is meticulous. They own the property and respect the property. Renters tend to not care about the property because they don,t own it. If you put in 24 units he thinks half of them should be owned instead of rented. 4. Gary Olsen at 2330 Maple Lane in Maplewood. He does not live in the neighborhood but he appreciates Mr. Mogren's efforts to put in work force housing. He thinks it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood and the community. Work force housing is for teachers, nurses, policemen and women. He hopes the planning commission will support this proposal. 5. Jeanine Moreno at 2272 Craig Place in Maplewood She is the grand watch block captain for the area of five blocks. She hears complaints from the neighbors. Emma's Place is not responsible for everything that has been happening but it seems like since they moved in the crime has increased a lot. The children are afraid to walk to school, they are afraid to ride the bus and the kids are being harassed. There was the meth clinic they had to put up with, the group home, and Emma's Place. This is supposed to be a family community. It is just a community where kids are afraid. There is a nursing home up the street and the residents walk the streets daily around that area. With the increased traffic it could be dangerous for those residents. She can't believe the police department says the calls have not increased because she gets a monthly report and what the police department is reporting is not true. 6. Maggie Chalkline at 1863 East County Road B in Maplewood. She heard the reason Mr. Mogren wanted the additional two units was so he could have onsite management and if that is true, she thinks that is a good idea. She would like the city to consider closing the north half of Van Dyke Street completely. It is a traffic hazard as it is now. A lot of the traffic on Van Dyke Street is from the people trying to avoid going through the stoplights on White Bear Avenue and they cut through on Van Dyke Street onto County Road B East. This would slow down the traffic and it would be open only to the residents that live there. 7. Art Engstrom at 2525 Highwood Avenue in Maplewood. He owns the Goodwill Store on White Bear Avenue to the north of this property. He has seen this piece of property sit for many many years. At one time he was interested in purchasing this property but he was made aware it would cost a considerable amount to dig out the peat and put the fill in and the expense would be monumental. Here is a developer who has a good reputation in the city and an outstanding citizen in the community and he wants to build this development There is no economic way that by building nine senior cottages in this area. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -9- Mr. Engstrom said no one would attempt to pay that kind of a bill and it would be a losable proposition. Putting rental garages in that area would be too costly. This would improve the situation to the south that many people have complained about. He supports this proposal. 8. Connie Launderville at 2194 Van Dyke Street in Maplewood. She thinks Mr. Mogren has done an excellent job on his homework and she sees nothing wrong with this proposal, Her problem is more of a social issue from Emma's Place, which has created hardships in the neighborhood. When she walks out into her yard she sees litter everywhere and she has to pick it up. The residents at Emma's Place are loud, there are no activities for the children to do and they go out into the neighborhood and cause problems. Her grandchildren cannot even walk around the pond without being harassed by children from Emma's Place. There are school bus issues with the kids from Emma's Place. The kids riding the bus are harassed by kids living at Emma's Place at the bus stop as well as on the bus. They steal things from the other kids, they knock backpacks off of the kids, they take kids books and throw them in the aisles on the buses etc. and now the kids don't even want to.ride the buses anymore.. She thinks the renters at Van Dyke Village will find out it will not be a nice place to live next to. There will be issues that will have to be dealt with daily. She knows Mr. Mogren will do a real good job on his part but she is concerned about his renters living next to Emma's Place. Commissioner Mueller said it sounds like the issue is Emma's Place and not really this proposed development. He asked if the city thought about doing something about the problems at Emma's Place? It sounds like there are many problems the neighbors deal with which will directly affect this proposed development. Mr. Roberts said he has not heard any specific actions or directions that the city council wants city staff to take with Emma's Place or its management. Through the testimony tonight and when it goes to the city council meeting, the city staff may get some direction regarding these problems. He knows the police department has been working with the staff at Emma's Place but he does not know if they have been successful. Until direction is given from the city council he is not aware of anything that can be done. When the CUP at Emma's Place comes up for review, some of these issues can be looked at. Kids acting badly on the bus and kids loitering and stealing are not land use issues. Mr. Roberts said these are not things the city council can put control on. There has to be parental involvement and management involvement. A lot of the issues that are being discussed here probably go back to management and the tenants. If there are bad people living at Emma's Place, then those people should be evicted. Commissioner Dierich said she is concerned about rental property verses ownership property. It seems this neighborhood has been hit harder then others and she is concerned about this. Three weeks ago there was discussion about the density and a setback and community property for the Highwood Farms development. She agrees with the residents that there needs to be more consistency. There is great land left in Maplewood and there is not much of it left. Whether it is work force housing or not it needs to be quality housing and it needs to be a quality neighborhood. She has a problem lowering the density for one end of town in Maplewood and not for the other. Her daughter just bought a town home with the same payment of $800 plus dollars a month with the same amenities and she does not know why these can't be owner occupied units. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -10- Commissioner Dierich said it would help the tax structure in Maplewood in the long run. She would like to see the neighborhood input taken into consideration for this proposal. Mr. Mogren should be held to the same standards as the other developers in the city such as the situation in south Maplewood. Commissioner Pearson said the density is too high here and the use is wrong for the area. A better transition from commercial to R-1 is R-S single-family housing with smaller lots. It would be affordable and owner occupied and a better solution for the neighborhood. He will not be supporting this proposal. Commissioner Rossbach moved to deny the resolution on pages 36 of the staff report. This resolution would change the land use plan from BC (business commercial) and R-3 (M) (residential medium density) to R-3 (H) (residential high density) for the 3.6-acre site of the Van Dyke Village town house development. The planning commission is making this recommendation because: (changes are in bold and deletions have a strike through them), a. The density is too high. b. The type of development is not the best choice for the transition. c. The existing land use designation would be a better fit for the neighborhood. " high Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -11- ,-) Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -12- Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Nays- Fischer, Mueller Chairperson Fischer asked if it was the consensus to not make a recommendation or to recommend denial for the CUP? Planning commission members said that is correct. Chairperson Fischer said she did nOt feel adding the additional two units above what is currently allowed would be destructive to the neighborhood and if it would allow on-site management to the development she would be in favor of it. Commissioner Mueller said adding the additional units are not a problem for him. The motion to deny was approved. Commissioner Rossbach said his opinion is that the city needs to review the PUD ordinance as a whole. It is being used on small lots to get around rezoning which is a tougher way to go and requires fewer votes from the city council. The zoning for the property should be changed, you are not combining uses. It should be done in assistance to develop pieces of property that had unique circumstances. He feels that PUD's are being asked for too often and being asked for the wrong reasons. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -13- Commissioner Trippler said he does not have a problem with the development. He has a problem with constantly giving variances to the rules and regulations. It is pushing the envelope just a little more. He is certainly not recommending the commission never grant variances. He asked what the purpose was to push it to two additional units. The property is already zoned R-3(M). If the developer came in and said they wanted to put in 21 or 22 units on the property he would have agreed to it, But developers want to push the limit just to see how much more then can get. You need to be consistent, if you are going to apply a standard to one part of the city it needs to be applied to all parts of the city. If the developer wants to come back and take 3 units out he would say great. Commissioner Mueller said the planning commission has always had people come before the commission and ask for changes. And the planning commission decides if it is a good or bad thing. FolloW the rules or you won't get approved. We have always said bring your proposal to us andwe will take a look at it and see if we will agree to it or not. This item goes to the city council on March 31 or April 14, 2003, and staff will be sending out a notice when that is determined. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Home Occupation License- Hair Salon (2497 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. The city council has apProved home occupation licenses for hair salons in the past. There are now two hair salon home occupations in operation in Maplewood - one on Minnehaha Avenue and another on Maryland Avenue. Although many home occupation requests generate concerns from neighbors, our office has found hair salons to be a good fit in neighborhoods and we have not received complaints about them. Commissioner Desai asked if there has been a request for signage at the home for the hair salon? Mr. Roberts said there has been no request. The ordinance does allow a 2 square foot sign by code that the applicant could put up if She chose to. Commissioner Dierich asked staff what the planning commission does when the homeowners association specifically forbids businesses like this as well as signage? Mr. Roberts said that is between the homeowners association and the homeowner. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -14- Commissioner Dierich asked staff if there was an issue as part of the PUD that you have to abide with the homeowner association rules and now the city is going to give a license to operate a home business that she believes is prohibited. She talked to the developer Mr. Paul Engstrom tonight and they have their lawyers looking into this at this point. He said he does not think it will be allowed but he has to check into it further. She asked if this home was finished yet? Mr. Roberts said no it is not completed yet. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to clarify which has the binding power, the city rules or the association rules? Mr. Roberts said he couldn't say which one has binding power. That is a decision made by the lawyers. The city has rules in the code, which are in the staff report, that allow home-based businesses subject to city council approval. Homeowner's association rules are private contracts entered into with the lot buyer and the seller of the lot where the lot buyers agree to meet certain conditions. Typically, they deal with the size of the home, the square footage of the home, what they can park outside of the home, if they allow storage sheds, and what kind of fencing you can have. It is a list of do's and don'ts of the neighborhood for homeowners. It is a private contract between the private parties and the city is not part of those contracts nor is the city part of the enforcement of those contracts. If there was a conflict, he can't say who would prevail. Commissioner Rossbach asked if there are instances in the PUD motion that reference the homeowner's association rules such as it is a private road and they need to provide their own plowing and that type of thing? Mr. Roberts said that is correct but the homeowners association can form their own rules above and beyond the minimum requirements of the city. They may have adopted rules saying no home businesses, no fences, or storage sheds, where the city would allow such things. Commissioner Rossbach said he is feeling uncomfortable with this. He would like to get some more legal input from the city attorney. He would not want to be in a position where the commission votes to approve a use that would be in direct violation of a homeowner's association rule, if there were consequences for the city. He would like to see more information before going any further with this. Commissioner Pearson said he is in agreement with Mr. Rossbach. The city requires the covenants as part of these PUD's and he does not know why a person would purchase a property with covenants if the use they wanted was in violation. He said he is concerned that what the commission decides here could become a club to be used against the homeowner's association. The legality of this should be known and this should be tabled until there is feedback given to staff from the city attorney. Chairperson Fischer asked what the timetable was for this, could be tabled and is there time for these questions to be answered by the city attorney? Mr. Roberts said the city is on a 60-day time restriction, unless the applicant agrees to the tim~ extension. He said the city is obligated to provide a decision by March 24, 2003, which means it could come back to the planning commission meeting on March 17, 2003. At that point it would go to the city council meeting on March 31,2003. Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 03-03-03 Mr. Roberts said he is not a lawyer and reminded the commission that the charge of the planning commission is to review and use the city ordinances and the city regulations. There is no planning commission responsibility with what the homeowner's rules are. It may put the homeowner in an awkward position if there are conflicts there but that is their problem, not the planning commissions. The planning commissions responsibility is to determine if it meets the intent and if the application meets the city's expectations for home occupations. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if they had known the homeowners association covenants and is that why that information was not included in the staff report? Mr. Roberts said no, he has not seen anything in writing relating to the covenants of the neighborhood, The developer Mr. Engstrom said he was concerned about this home occupation license but that was the extent of it. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if it is a requirement that the city keeps the homeowners association rules on file? Mr. Roberts said the city often requests that the city reviews the homeowner association rules but they don't necessarily have the final recorded documents. Commissioner Trippler asked if the homeowners association was notified about this home occupation license? Mr. Roberts said the developer was notified and they are still the controlling interest in the homeowners association. Commissioner Mueller said he agrees with Mr. Roberts that the planning commission has to make their decisions based on what they know about the city ordinances. The planning commission can't have advanced knowledge of every neighborhood homeowners association, contract or covenant before making final decisions. After the city makes a decision, it is up to the homeowner and the association-, contractor or developer to work things out. Commissioner Pearson said he deals with rules of the neighborhood all the time. This is a nonconforming use for the zoning that is there and until there is further information provided from the city attorney and or the homeowners association, he would not feel comfortable voting on this. Commissioner Desai asked' staff if the city gets involved in complaints from the neighborhood when the homeowner association rules get broken? Mr. Roberts said no. Commissioner Desai said that is a clear indication to him that the city should base their decision on the city's ordinances and not on the homeowners association. CommisSioner Rossbach said which is exactly why he wonders which one governs, the city, s decision or the homeowner's association? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -16- Chairperson Fischer said she is uncomfortable with a double standard if the city uses the covenants in "addition to" or "in lieu of" the city's rules for making a recommendation. Staff would have to ask the city attorney how the planning commission avoids that. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the planning commission. The applicant, Debra Siedenburg and her husband, Shannon Siedenburg at 5359 Heath Avenue North in Oakdale, addressed the commission. They did receive some documents from the developer stating it would be okay to have a hair salon as a home occupation. They said they would be comfortable tabling this until more information is provided to the planning commission. They don't want to do anything against the rules or illegal and would get more information for staff from the developer. Commissioner Rossbach moved to table this item until March 17, 2003. More information will need to be provided by the city attorney to provide further direction. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed and so the request is tabled until March 17, 2003. Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) Presentation - Legacy Village (County Road D and Kennard) Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director at the City of Maplewood, said the Hartford Group has proposed a development 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 m ixed-use development is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan for this area of the city. The drawing in the staff report shows a draft concept for the proposed development. On Mamh 24, 2003, the city council will be considering 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. It is recommended that the Planning Commission provide any comments and issues to the City Council for consideration of the AUAR for the Legacy Village at Maplewood. Ms. Jenny Ross with SRF Consulting Group, Inc., gave a presentation to the planning commission on the AUAR c. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Review - County Road D Improvement Project (Hazelwood to Highway 61) Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director at the City of Maplewood, said 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 Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 D west of TH 61. The EAW has been completed and is available. For public review and comment. Presentation of the document to the planning commission is for the purpose of comments related to land use issues within the area. A 30-day comment period is required as part of the review process for an EAW. That comment period is due to expire on March 5, 2003. The EAW is posted on the city's website and available for inspection at City Hall and at the local library. It is anticipated that final review of the EAW will occur on March 24, 2003, at the City Council meeting. No approvals of projects, right of way mapping, or final alignment consideration can occur until the EAW process is completed. Mr. Ahl said this project would begin construction in October 2003 and end in November 2004. It is recommended that the planning commission review the EAW and provide comments and responses to the city council for consideration on the County Road D Realignment Project. Mr. Ahl said there would be a public hearing at the city council meeting on Monday, March 24, 2003. The city council will act on this on April 28, 2003. Ms. Beth Kunkle; an Environmental Planner with URS, gave a presentation on the EAW. After the presentation they opened discussion up for questions from the planning commission. Commissioner Trippler said this is one of the most significant pieces of land to develop in Maplewood and the brevity of this document struck him, which was only two pages in length. He was not familiar with the AUAR so he called the state planning agency and they said AUAR is appropriate for a development if that development is in accordance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He got out the Comprehensive Plan and he looked at the property is classified as business commercial. When he looked at the proposed developments in the report 75% of it is high density residential. He does not see how those two are compatible at all. He does not see how the city can proceed with this because it does not seem at all appropriate. He said it should go through an ElS process. Mr. Ahl said staff disagrees with Commission Trippler's analysis. Staff and legal counsel have information that says the Comprehensive Plan does have the as a holding zone and there is a specific section that talks about the holding zone and the various uses. Under the zoning the R-3 usage is specifically listed as a possibility of that site. Commissioner Trippler asked if he understood that the sanitary sewer capacity issue has been resolved and does the City of Maplewood have approval from the MCES? Mr. Ahl said staff is currently revising those numbers and staff has met with the Met Council and they are in agreement with the numbers. The 1987 numbers are very acceptable. There was a 2000 addition to the sewer plan that was done very briefly by the engineering staff that had some errors and they discovered them and they are currently operating on the 1987 plan, which is acceptable and has plenty of capacity. The city is going to update the 1987 plan to the 2003 numbers. The MCES is acceptable with that and has commented appropriately. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Ahl when the city would get approval from the MCES? Mr. Ahl said the city anticipates that happening in April. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -18- Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Ahl how the city could proceed until the city knows that it is going to be a done deal? If the city does not get approval doesn't that shut this process down? Mr. Ahl said no, they are currently operating on the 1987 plan and the city has a more than adequate sanitary sewer capacity based on that plan. Commissioner Trippler asked who is going to pay for the water supply along County Road D? If he understood correctly, when the Hillcrest Animal Hospital asked to have the water extended to their property, the city made them pay for it. He said if that were the case, would the city require the people who live along this area pay for the water main? Mr. Ahl said the city is currently working on the financing of the water main improvement. Because it is a border with Vadnais Heights, the city is working with who needs water on both sides of the street. He said the Hillcrest Animal Hospital was assessed according to the benefit that they received that paid for about 20% of the improvement project, the St. Paul Regional Water Department paid for the remaining 80% of the water main improvement project. They provide the water, as the water utility, for the city. They have indicated a willingness to help fund this proposed extension. He said a portion of that, the properties that benefit from the water main improvements will pay for it and the remainder will pay through the water utility. Commissioner Trippler asked how the police officers and fireman that are needed how does the city factor that into the development process and who pays for that? Mr. Ahl said staff has struggled with that. He said this development will increase property values well over 100 million dollars in the area under current estimates. The city has to look at ways to finance improvements from the development and from others in the development. The city has identified this within the AUAR document as a first need before other improvements in the area are put together. When staff meets with the developer on this, the requirement for more policemen and firemen is very important and they need to look at how this will be funded before looking at financing and other improvements. Commissioner Trippler said regarding the County Road D alignment, if he was the parent of a school aged child, and his child brought home F's for grades, and you told him that spending a lot of money would raise his grade from an F to a D he would think you were crazy. He said it is just not acceptable. It should not be acceptable to the taxpayers either to spend millions of dollars for road improvements in Maplewood to go from a grade F to a grade D. In his opinion, that is not a good use of taxpayer dollars and it is a failed alternative. Mr. Ahl said When staff talks about grade F and D in relationship to traffic volumes in intersection analysis and roadway capacity F is failing. The standard in the metropolitan area, in Minnesota and in the upper Midwest a D level of service is what the public is "willing" to sustain and pay for and that is acceptable. From an engineering standpoint they can build their way out of congestion by building 12 lane freeways, however, the public cannot sustain the costs for that. Mr. Ahl said the public makes a determination that it is an acceptable level of service that there will be some congestion and delay at intersections and from a traffic analysis standpoint they cai' it a level of service a grade D that there is some level of congestion and they quantify that, He said the goal is to achieve a D level of service not a grade D. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -19- Commissioner Dierich said she thought the grade D was if the city "doesn't" do anything with that land. She said now the city is adding over 1,000 housing units. She asked how the additional housing would add to that. She asked if the city is saying they are going to be at a level D but after this development is done the city will go back to a level F? Mr. Ahl said the traffic report states, that if this development does not get built and the city does nothing, the city is at a grade F at a number of intersections and the city will be at a grade F at all the intersections within ten years time. He said doing nothing with the traffic problem is not an option. Doing these 11 improvements that are listed on the map will provide the city a 10-to-20 year plan to have all intersections operating at a level D of service. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Ahl where the 20 years of time came into play. He said all of the figures that have been given are for the year 2020? Mr. Ahl said after the original traffic study, the other studies that the city has done looked at the 20-year plan because that is a requirement. The alignment study has documents that look at the 10-year plan, but those have been extended out. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff why would it be in the city's interest to reclassify wetland A? Mr, Ahl said that wetland has been degraded. He said when the city looks at the wetland maps they are not an inventory, they are done with aerial photography. That wetland east of the Highridge Court development has been degraded with construction activity and it does not meet the criteria. What staff does is to look at that and bring back on-site information and update the city's maps as information becomes available. He said to just reclassify it, no, if it is a protected wetland it stays that way and the city deals with it: Commissioner Rossbach asked why it was classified as a wetland then? Mr. Ahl said typically the information is done city wide based on old maps and aerial photos and they find that the wetlands are classified as one thing and they have changed over the years and they don't meet that criteria again. Commissioner Rossbach asked if it would be possible that due to all the construction that the developers could have degraded the wetland? Mr. Ahl said he couldn't deny that the developers may have had an impact on the wetland. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the wetland should be restored back to its original condition? Ms. Ross said the construction done north of County Road D, that wetland is an isolated basin the area north of County Road D and doesn't really drain into it. Commissioner Rossbach said he was referring to the area south side of County Road D. Mr. Ahl said he believes Mr. Rossbach is talking about the wetland A to the west of Highway 61. There is a wetland A "within" the development and wetland A "on" the alignment. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -20- Commissioner Rossbach said the aerial map in figure 5 shows the aerial view, green spaces and streams, should staff interpret that to be the initial delineation of streams that are on those properties? Ms. Kunkle said the stream areas or blue lines shown on this graphic illustrate the county ditch and the tributaries to that county ditch that are mapped on the water shed district map. Commissioner Rossbach said the planning commission is a bit touchy about what is called streams. If those are streams by the Maplewood ordinance definition then they should be labeled that way. Ms. Kunkle said that is incorrectly labeled then it should be labeled as a county ditch then. Mr. Ahl said the city has gone through that process with this commission before the city would consider any impacts to that similar to the impact of the wetland. Commissioner Rossbach said there are 100-foot buffers on either side, is the city sure they want to make that statement? Mr. Ahl said yes. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff who was it who set up the various types of uses for the Hajicek development? Mr. Ahl said the Hartford Development set that up. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if the AUAR is set up so it is at the maximum density for those development areas? Mr. Ahl said in some cases those exceed the densities in areas that the city has seen. Certainly all those land use issues that the planning commission and the city council will be working through and trying to decide. Staff took this as the worse case scenario and in some cases it may be 30 units per acre, which are not in any land use designations. Commissioner Rossbach asked if this locks the city in to what the actual densities would be that the city would allow in this development. Mr. Ahl said no. Ms. Ross said the purpose of the AUAR is to take the worse case scenario. The basic assumptions were with the traffic study in 2001 to see the intensity and the types of land uses. She said then the Hartford Group took that information plus took a market analysis to see if some minor variations and what types of land uses would be marketable consistent with trying to keep the traffic levels at approximately the same number of trips generated in the 2001 study. Ms. Ross said so any development that is proposed by Hartford Group would be at or below those two-generation levels. Planning Commission -21- Minutes of 03-03-03 Commissioner Rossbach said he would wrote a letter to the City Manager, Engineering, Planning Commission, Staff and City Council regarding the realignment of County Road D and development in the Mall area. He read the letter aloud and he would like the letter included in the minutes. The letter read as follows: March 3, 2003 TO: Maplewood City Manager, City Council, Engineering Department, and Planning Staff and Planning Commission Members I am writing this letter to communicate my thoughts and concerns having to do with the process of realigning County Road D from Hazelwood Avenue to Highway 61. I feel that I can cover the topic better in this format than presenting information at either a planning commissions meeting or at the City Council meetings. My basic premise is that the current process does not go far enough to solve the traffic problems that exist or that will present themselves in the future. Most people who use the roadways in and around the Maplewood Mall commercial area are aware that there are traffic problems in this area and that these problems will only worsen as time goes on. The area of Maplewood that is affected is a large area that includes the direct commercial area around the mall, residential areas to the east at least to McKnight Road, commercial areas to the south down White Bear Avenue at least to Highway 36, the residential area to the south between White Bear Avenue and Highway 61 to Highway 36, the commercial corridor on Highway 61 from Highway 36 at the south to at least interstate 694 to the north, and the residential area to the west of Highway 61, County Road C to interstate 694. This entire area is affected by traffic generated by the mall commercial area at present and in all of these areas the traffic problems will continue to worsen as time passes. As an example, the current traffic on Highway 61 is about 34,000 trips a day and is projected to be at about 40,000 trips per day in 2020. McKnight Road is at about 9,000 trips per day and is projected to be at more than 11,000 trips per day in 2020. County Road C is at about 6,000 trips per day and is projected to be over 12,000 trips per day in 2020. These projected figures are provided by the Met Council and are in Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the city to guide development within the city. The plan has many sections of which I will note only a couple. In the Land Use Section of the plan there are 11 goals listed for development, of these, three are significant to the process at hand. They are "protect and strengthen neighborhoods, minimize conflicts between land uses and prevent premature use, over crowding or over use of land, especially where supportive services and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems or streets are not available". The Comprehensive Plan continues with general development policies, the first of which is, "the city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as streets, utilities, drainage, parks and open space". The residential development policies section has one policy to consider it is, "protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors, or generate heavy traffic". Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -22- Finally, in the commercial development Policies we find three policies that are pertinent they are "require commercial and industrial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses, plan land uses and streets to route non- residential traffic around residential neighborhoods and restrict commercial and industrial development that would result in traffic volumes which are beyond the capacity of the road systems or generate excessive noise or pollution as defined by state standards. It is obvious that the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan is committed to protecting residential neighborhoods from developments that would force traffic onto residential streets, or would create traffic that would exceed the planned capacity of the roads and that the city will not approve development that is premature or does not have a plan to ensure that residential neighborhoods are protected from traffic generated by those developments. I would submit, that in consideration of the realignment of County Road D and the upcoming development of the Hajicek property, that these policies are not being adequately considered. One example would be the section of County Road C from Highway 61 to Hazelwood A venue. This roadway is classified as a collector street in the Comprehensive Plan and according to the plan, should carry 1,000 to 7,000 trips per day. The plan also shows this section of road is currently carrying 6,500 trips per day. It is projected to be carrying 15, 000 trips per day by 2020. If you contrast this to the section of County Road C from Hazelwood A venue to White Bear Avenue, which currently carries 6,300 trips per day and is projected to carry 10,900 trips per day in 2020, you can see two things. First, the entire length of County Road C from Highway 61 to White Bear Avenue will exceed its capacity well before 2020 and where are the 4,100 cars that traveled on County Road C from Highway 61 to Hazelwood A venue ? I would submit that most o them are at the mall. In this example, two of Maplewood developments standards are being ignored. One is that commercial traffic is using residential streets and the other is that the street capacity has been doubled or almost triples. I am sure that many other similar examples could be given, but this is the area I am most familiar with and have traffic numbers for. Maplewood's Engineering Department was used to generate the alignment study for County Road D and in its report it lists the criteria used to create and evaluate the options. None of the criteria used reflects any consideration of the development policies I have mentioned in this letter. It would appear they were totally focused on moving traffic out of the mall area and the impacts of a road on the land it would cross. The net result is that we would make the traffic on White Bear Avenue better by making it worse somewhere else. There were 6 alternatives considered in the process and only one of them made an attempt to do something with the traffic once it got to Highway 61, this was alternative #3, which made some changes to the interchange with interstate 694. Unfortunately, the plan had a new ramp cutting right through existing buildings so it was a non-starter. None of the other plans addresses what happens once we put 10,000 to 15,000 cars per day on to Highway 61. I would submit that any plan to reconnect County Road D to Highway 61 and interstate 694. I believe that this would be best accomplished by keeping County Road D on its existing alignment. I am a little hesitant to discuss how to do this because I am not a traffic engineer but to create a starting point I would submit this. Have a one-way road, which connects to County Road D at about the comer with Hazelwood Avenue. This road would go north and cross 1-694 away from the County Roac D/Highway 61 intersection. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -23- Next, install a loop off of County Road that merges with the existing on ramp to eastbound 1-694 eliminating this traffic from the County Road D by moving the ramps as far south as possible in the existing right of way and move County Road D north. I know this sounds unconventional but it would eliminate the problem of having two signalized intersections, which are too close together. Finally, create a ramp from eastbound 1-694 that passes over Highway 61 and merges into the new County Road D. I believe that if these things were done, it would greatly reduce the traffic that would accurately use the County Road D/Highway 61 intersection and would move traffic freely out of the area creating the easy or preferred exit from the mall area. I reemphasize that I do not present this as '~the answer" but I do think that someone with proper traffic training could come up with workable solutions. The other part of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies I quoted was that Maplewood would not approve development that could not or did not provide for compatibility with the surrounding residential uses and that Maplewood would require the developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility. Maplewood will soon be looking at a development plan for the property and will most likely face some pressure to move quickly. I submit, however, that unless we have a more complete plan of how the traffic created by this development and the existing traffic congestion in the mall area is to be handled that Maplewood cannot proceed with any development in this area without ignoring their own comprehensive land use policies. After considering any additional alternatives, it is determined that the current suggested alternate for the County Road D alignment proposal is the appropriate alternate plan will not be complete without including the re-working of the Highway 61/I-694 interchange and thorough consideration of other traffic controls to protect the surrounding neighborhoods. Respectfully Submitted, Will Rossbach Vice Chair of Maplewood Planning Commission Commissioner Dierich said she does not know how the Hajicek property can be developed and add 1,000 housing units and not have it increase the air pollution, noise pollution and traffic. She proposes that the planning commission send a resounding notice to the city council that they really don't like this plan including the realignment of County Road D. Commissioner Rossbach asked why wasn't there any other alternative considered other then the one he mentioned in his letter that had any connections to 1-6947 Mr. Ahl said there were six alternatives looked at in that area. The DOT, Ramsey County and all the communities looked at they looked at some of the studies done over the years, additional ramps, with the overall improvements and costs and need for local participation it was the consensus of the engineers from MnDot, Ramsey County, the other communities and Mr. Ahl himself that those were not feasible projects. Chairperson Fischer asked if Mr. Ahl meant if the projects were technically, politically or economically feasible? Mr. Ahl said all three, simply because of the impacts to the ramps, the surrounding communities and the over all approvals that are needed. Technically, as engineers, they say they can build anything with the right amount of money. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -24- Mr. Ahl said however, to get to an acceptable amount of money for the scope of the problem that the city has, it is not a socially acceptable answer because of the cost to the community and to the region. The city also has problems getting that type of funding. Commissioner Dierich said she knows Mr. Ahl has put a tremendous amount of time into this project, as well as many other people have put a lot of time into this. She believes this is "a" solution but it is not an "optimal" solution. She hates throwing good money after bad. At this point that the planning commission is to ask the city council to step back and really take a look at this plan. If the planning commission doesn't like this plan and many of the commission members don't live directly in this area, she can only imagine that the residents that live in this area won't like it either. She said everyone is about representing the city for the residents and as a community this project should not divide the community. If the city's planning commission is not excited about this development plan and it is clear that Mr. Ahl is not happy about this alternative plan either. Before the city goes any further the city should re-look at this again. Maybe this is the "only" plan that would work but she feels the city council needs to hear that the members of the planning commission do not agree with this plan and want the city council to really think about the possibility of another option. Commissioner Mueller said he is in favor of this plan. He trusts the people that are working on this plan. He said there were choices but the planning commission did not like the choice that was recommended. He agrees with the commission that it's not the best plan but maybe it's the only plan but what else is there. Maybe the city can wait for 10 to 15 years and maybe get the intersection the city wants but between then and now the city is going to end up with traffic headaches with what the city has now. He appreciates the time that takes to put something lik6 this together. He doesn't know what the answer is either. He appreciates that this is the best that they can do on this plan and it may be the worse thing the planning commission has ever seen, Mr. Ahl said he appreciates the planning commissions comments. He said this is a very difficult problem. The city has 25 years of history and traffic growth that the city has not been willing to handle. Now is the time to pay the price. He feels this is the best solution for the area and he recommends it. Commissioner Trippler said since he will be the planning commission representative at the city council meeting on March 31,2003, he wants to see how everyone feels on this issue. Commissioner Rossbach said he feels the city is not addressing some significant issues that are currently in the Comprehensive Plan and they are not addressed. He is not completely against this plan, but he wants to fix the problem. He thinks the city is not doing it quite right. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she is generally not against the whole development for the Hajicek plan. She thinks the alignment for County Road D is "screwy" (for lack of another word). She thinks this will be a good development in the long run, but there are issues to solve. She said what the city is currently doing doesn't go far enough to solve the problems, but she's not sure she has a better idea. Therefore, she agrees with comments made by both Mr. Rossbach and Mr. Mueller. She hopes this will be a good development if and when it goes through. Chairperson Fischer said she is not arguing usages on the site right now. It is the apprehension over whether this alignment is going to do what it is intended to do. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -25- Commissioner Desai said he doesn't have an issue with the Hajicek property. He said how the traffic is controlled is an issue. Maplewood wanted to pursue the traffic solution by themselves because it was much faster not including Vadnais Heights and White Bear. He said maybe the other cities should be consulted or included. They are making use the roads and will be making use of the future Hajicek property or the Maplewood Mall. He said those cities have budgets for doing roadwork, they have planning commissions and city councils and they should be participating in this project as well. a. Conditional Use Permit ReVision - Schmelz Countryside VW/Saab (1180 Highway 36) Mr. Roberts said John Schmelz is proposing to remodel and expand the existing Saab sales/showroom building located within his Countryside Motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. The addition will be 8,610-square-feet in area and will have an automobile repair and service facility. In addition, Mr. Schmelz proposes to expand his automobile sales/storage lot into a vacant lot next to Ember's Restaurant. Mr. Roberts said John Schmelz purchased the new lot from the Ember's owners in order to expand his sales/storage lot. A land survey reflected that the vacated Cope Avenue right-of-way, located on the south side of the property, was not part of the new lot. City and county records, however, reflect that it was vacated by the city years ago. Mr. Schmelz's attorney is currently filing a quite title action to clear the title and ensure the right-of-way is legally part of the lot. The site plan included with this proposal includes the vacated right-of-way. Therefore, a condition of approval should be that the resulting order from the court reflects that Mr. Schmelz is the fee owner of the vacated right-of-way. Mr. Roberts said the applicant is proposing an 8,61 O-square-foot addition for the south side of the Saab showroom/sales building. The addition will have a new automobile repair/service facility for the Saab dealership. The dealership is currently servicing these automobiles in an existing building located behind the Volkswagen and Saab buildings. If the city approves the addition, the dealership will use the existing repair facility as overflow repair and service for types of vehicles. The construction of the addition will remove 39 parking stalls. The parking stalls will be replaced by the addition of the new sales/storage lot next to Ember's, which will accommodate up to 200 automobiles. Mr. Roberts said the new sales/storage lot would be used for the sale and storage of automobiles. It will be constructed of bituminous and concrete curb and gutter. The sales/storage lot will not be striped, but will hold about 200 automobiles. City code does not require that an automobile sales/storage lot have striped parking stalls unless there are parking stalls for employees or customers. There is no employee or customer parking stalls proposed, but in order to ensure adequate drive aisles, a striping plan must be submitted that shows drive aisles of at least 24 feet in width. Commissioner Rossbach there is a problem city wide with the automobile dealerships to continue unloading vehicles in the public right-of-way. What kind of options does the city have to enforce that, it seems like the city could make some money by having those people ticketed. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -26- Mr. Roberts said that has been done in the past. If the city was notified of that and if there was an officer available, they could be sent out to investigate the situation. Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned about the enforceability of restrictions the city has put on this applicant. He has spent quite a bit of time looking at this site. It seems like the applicant goes ahead and does what ever he wants to and apparently nobody says anything about it. He said they built the Volkswagen thing up to within five feet. They put a new front on the SAAB building and there is an overhang on the front and it is within two or three feet of the lot line and it shouldn't be any closer than five feet. He said they park cars back in the SAAB lot that is on property that they did not own. He feels real uncomfortable giving the applicant anything that he is requesting because he is going to do it anyway. He has lived in the neighborhood for 18 years and he shops a lot at Menards. He has never seen the trucks unload cars anywhere but on the road. There is a two-lane road there with yellow lane and the road curves and you cannot see around the transport truck. He said he even stopped and identified himself as a planning commissioner for the city and he told the driver he can't unload there and he told Mr. Trippler he was almost done and walked away. The car dealerships are told the rules of unloading vehicles on the street and to only unload in the parking lot of the dealership. He said they are warned over and over and they keep breaking the rule because nothing ever happens to them. Commissioner Dierich said she totally agrees with Mr. Trippler. She said this is the fourth time she has gone out to the site of a dealership for an upcoming item for the planning commission meeting when there was a truck unloading cars illegally. She thinks the police should be called to ticket these dealership owners. Mr. William Mulcahy, a professional engineer with Glen Rehbein Companies, representing the applicant, addressed the commission the commission. He said the applicant acquired the open lot because Mr. Schmelz has a desperate need for storage and parking space. He said they could have built an underground drainage system or build a porous pavement system. For financial reasons, they decided to go with the porous pavement system this would take the place of an ecosystem. He said the client is prepared to abide by many of the comments made by staff. They will move the grading fifteen feet away from the water main alignment. As a result of that the retaining wall will be about a foot taller. Another result of moving the grading, is St. Paul doesn't want a fence ten feet away from the alignment either so the fence also has to move. He said if they put the fence at fifteen feet that goes through the landscaping that is proposed at the south side. So they have proposed to put the fence at the top of the retaining wall and the · landscaping will be between the fence and the trail which will end up being a better solution to the residents and the people that use that trail along the south side. He has agreed to have a 24-foot entrance and exit to his new parking lot, the retaining wall will be moved to 20 feet from the east property line on the residential side. He said the striping of the parking stalls is not necessary and the applicant does not want it required. He said car dealerships are very efficient with their space. The applicant doesn't feel he should be required to have stone columns or an electronic closing gate, vinyl fencing, an irrigation system or landscaping around the storage lot. These items are more extravagant then the client is prepared to get. But the applicant is seriously thinking of upgrading the parking lot surface, which would increase the amount of space available for his business. He thinks those luxuries would look great in a different setting but i' would be too costlY. He is not in the car business to screen his company and property from potential customers and the public driving by. His business relies on exposure. In this day and age, he feels it would be prudent to spend resources on what would better his business. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -27- Mr. Mulcahy said the proposed screening that is "sufficient" is the retaining wall. He said if you look from the east and the south the cars will be completely screened because the cars will be sitting below grade. Mr. Roberts said many of the items Mr. Mulcahy is commenting on will be discussed at the CDRB meeting on March 11,2003. Commissioner Rossbach said he is curious how the porous pavement system will work and how that will benefit Mr. Schmelz's business and employees? Mr. Mulcahy said the porous pavement system is a system that allows a larger parking lot surface that incorporates the storm water management, the water quality and the grade control within the structural element of that parking lot surface. He said therefore, you would not have to put in the storm water pond that takes up eight or nine parking spaces so his business would operate better and more efficiently if he had more space. Commissioner Rossbach asked who told Mr. Mulcahy that if he put in a porous pavement system that the applicant would not be required to have a storm water pond? Mr. Mulcahy said he would design the parking lot so a storm water pond would not be necessary. Commissioner Pearson asked wouldn't the applicant's truck deliveries go more smoothly having the 24-foot entrance and exit on the property? He said then there would be no need to have the transport trucks delivering vehicles on the street? Mr. Mulcahy said he would defer that question to the applicant. Mr. John Schmelz, the applicant and owner for Schmelz Countryside VW/Saab, addressed the commission. He said as far as the entrance with the 24-foot entrance and exit he does not have a problem with that. He has the problem with the 24-foot drive aisles though. He measured the widest vehicle he has which is a truck/van, which is 70 inches wide which is a little less then 6 feet. 24-foot drive aisle would devastate his parking. With the setbacks and the other conditions he would loose close to 40% of his property and it is absolutely essential that he has sales storage. The alternative to this whole thing is that he finds another piece of property and how far away that would be he doesn't know. Then he would have to have drivers to transport the vehicles back and forth to the lots and that is expensive too. There is extra liability and more traffic going up and down that road transporting cars back and forth. The parking is essential to the whole scheme of where he wants to go. He has always been a team player with the city and he has done whatever they request. If he doesn't do this he will become uncompetitive with the business and everyone wants their own identity. They have been there since 1966 and was one of the first dealerships in Maplewood. In the last six years they have doubled the amount of employees to Maplewood at Countryside. His business has increased the tax base, the real estate tax base and he thinks he is a pretty good guy! Part of having a good business is to have a friendly environment, that it is not congested, people can get in and out easily and that is what they are striving to do. Commissioner Trippler when he was looking at the property that there were a number of cars already parked in that expansion lot, he asked the applicant who those cars belong to? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -28- Mr. Schmelz said some of the cars are construction vehicles and some are employee vehicles. Commissioner Trippler asked if he was already using the lot? Mr. Schmelz said it was discussed with the city that they had a certain time in which the construction people could finish the work and with the cold weather it has caused some extreme difficulties with the servicing and the backup of the business. Also, with the snow they can't push the snow off of the property because they are landlocked. Mr. Roberts said staff gave Mr. Schmelz and his dealership permission to use that lot on a temporary basis during the construction and the remodeling. It was the city's understanding that the construction was to be complete in mid-December but it is still going on. He said some of the construction has gone longer and Mr. Schmelz has told the city they have been very busy with service to vehicles and it has put a strain on his dealership. Commissioner Rossbach said Mr. Schmelz said his other option was to look for another site to store his vehicles. Mr. Rossbach said another dealership was going to build a storage facility separate from the dealership's location on Gervais Avenue. That dealership was given the same conditions for fencing, gate, and stone columns, landscaping etc. as Mr. Schmelz's dealership was given and that storage facility was in the middle of a residential and commercial area and he wonders why Mr. Schmelz thinks he should be asked less? commissioner Mueller said a five-foot setback is very close to the street. He said on an icy day if his car starting sliding he would hit a parked car in his dealership. He would rather slide intc some landscaping then hit a car, which would do less damage. Commissioner Mueller moved to deny John Schmelz's request for a 10-foot front setback variance from the right-of-way for the expansion of the sales/storage lot at his Countryside motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. The city is denying this request because: a. There is no hardship associated with the variance request. b. The proposed 5-foot sales/storage lot setback will not be consistent with the adjoining property's parking lot (Ember's). Co The proposed 5-foot sales/storage lot setback will leave no room for landscaping between the lot and the frontage road. Landscaping is needed to improve the curb appeal of the sales/storage lot. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-03 -29- Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt the resolution on pages 30 and 31. This resolution approves a revision to the conditional use permit for John Schmelz's Countryside Motors automobile dealership located at 1180 Highway 36 East. The revision is for the expansion of the nonconforming automobile repair and automobile sales (both located closer than the required 350 feet to residential property). Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined; deletions are crossed out): All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The construction of the proposed addition must be started within one year of city council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. c.~.. There shall be no vehicle access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. d. Loadinq or unloading of motor vehicles on the public right-of-way is prohibited. e. Automobiles can only be parked on desiqnated paved surfaces. f. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. The motion is approved. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler This item goes to the CDRB on March 11,2003 and to the city council on March 24, 2003. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission -30- Minutes of 03-03-03 IX, COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Pearson was the planning commission representative at the February 24, 2003, city council meeting. The only planning commission item was the Ohlson Landscaping that was approved. b. Ms. Monahan-Junek will be the planning commission representative at the March 10, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the St. Paul Soccer Center and Sibley Cove Apartments. c. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the March 31,2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Van Dyke Village, Schmelz addition, the County Road D EAW and the Legacy Village AUAR. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts said that staff plans on having some type of in-service training at the next planning commission meeting on March 17, 2003. XI, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Home Occupation License Debra Siedenburg 2697 Pinkspire Lane March 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ms. Debra Siedenburg is.requesting a home occupation license to start and operate a hair salon in her new home at 2697 Pinkspire Lane. Please see applicant's home occupation questionnaire on pages 5 and 6 and the maps on pages 7 through 12. DISCUSSION Hair Salon Business The applicant's business would be cutting, styling, perming and coloring hair of individuals. Ms. Siedenberg 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 Fdday, and she expects about 10-15 customers per week. Neighborhood Comments Of the 23 neighbors the city surveyed, we received two written replies. One was for the request and one was against. The one neighbor against the proposal said that he did not want to live in a business district. Ms. Siedenburg told me that she expects an average of two or three customers per day. If the city approves the hair salon business, the city's home occupation ordinance allows only residents of the home, plus one outside employee, to be employed within the business. In addition, the city council may place conditions on the business to ensure that surrounding residential properties are not negatively impacted. Planning Commission's Concerns At the planning commission meeting March 3, 2003, the commission expressed concems about recommending approval of the proposed home occupation if it would be in violation of homeowner's association rules. Because of this concern, the commission tabled action on this request to allow staff time to contact the city attorney and to review the homeowner's documents. The city attorney advised me that it is the city's and the commission's responsibility to review and to act on the city's rules and ordinances and not those of the homeowners association. In addition, Ms, Siedenburg provided me with a copy of the homeowner's documents. (See them on pages 17 - 19.) Section 7.5.1 of these rules allow the owner of a dwelling in New Century to have a home occupation, subject to the four conditions that they have listed. It is my opinion that the proposed hair salon, with its three or four visitors a day, will meet these requirements and would, in fact, generate less vehicular traffic than a home with two or three teenaged ddvers. Other Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated, "Provide a five-pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher." SUMMARY The city council has approved home occupation licenses for hair salons in the past. There are now two hair salon home occupations in operation in Maplewood - one on Minnehaha Avenue and another on Maryland Avenue. Although many home occupation requests generate concerns from neighbors, our office has found hair salons to be a good fit in neighborhoods and we have not received complaints about them. RECOMMENDATION 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: 1. 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. 2. Customer hours for this home occupation are limited from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 3. There shall be no more than 20 customers visiting the home per week. 4. All customers or visitors to the business shall park on the driveway. 5. Provide a five-pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher in the room. CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of 23 properties within 350 feet of this site and received two written replies. The wdtten replies were as follows: For 1. We support the proposed objectives as set forth by Ms. Debra Siedenberg. (Stock - 2699 New Century Lane) In addition, one person on the telephone said that the proposal was fine. AGAINST 1. I respectfully protest this venture based on the premise that I purchased my home in a residential neighborhood, not in a business district. (Henry - 2687 New Century Lane) SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Land Use: REFERENCE INFORMATION Single-Family Home (under construction) SURROUNDING LAND USES Single-family homes to the north, east and west Town houses across Pinkspire Lane PLANNING Existing Land Use Designation: Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Article II, Section 17-21(b) of the city's zoning code gives 12 requirements for approval of a home occupation license. I have attached these requirements on pages 13-16. Application Date We received the complete application for this home occupation license on January 29, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends March 28, 2003. Therefore, city council action is required on this proposal by March 24, 2003. P/sec13-28/Siedenburg Attachments: 1. Home Occupation Questionnaire 2. Location Map 3. Property Line Map 4. Site Plan 5. House Elevation 6. Floor Plan 7. Room Plan Detail 8. Home Occupation Ordinance 9. New Century Homeowners Documents 4 Attachment 1 HOME OCCUPATION QUESTIONNAIRE (Attach a separate page if additional space is needed) o Describe your home occupation: ·/-~.,.;',-- ~r~ K~r. J' ' J' o How many nonresident employees would work on-site? O HoW many nonresident employees would work off-site? ~) How often would off-site employees visit your home? What percentage of each level of your home's floor area, including the basement, would/ x you use in conducting the home occupation? Where on the premises would the home occupation be conducted? r~,g, -l?l~or, ri~4- - J J Describe any changes in the outside appearance of the building or property, other than one wall-mounted sign of not more than two square feet? What percentage of gross sales would come from the sale of a product(s) produced off- site? Ig o ~ How many customer or employee vehicles would be parked on the premises at any one time? Or~ l~ Describe the type, payload capacity and number of each type of vehicle to be used in the home occupation and where they would be parked, r)/~ ti ~ 10. What would be the average number of customers expected to visit the premises each week? to - 15' The average number of employee/subcontractor visits to the premises each week? O What time of day and which days of the week would you expect these visits to occur? J Describe any delivery vehicles that will make deliveries or ship products from the property. Include the type, amount, hours and frequency of deliveries. "T'h.t.-r.t._ L,o,'i i ~ 19o ~_.. 11. Describe the type of equipment, including ventilation systems, that would be used. Describe how you would keep the use of this equipment unnoticeable to your neighbors. 12. Describe the amount and type of any chemicals, gasoline, hazardous substances or similar material that would be used. Aisc, describe where these materials will be stored. J 13. Describe how you would dispose of any hazardous ma~e. rials. Applicant's Signature .Date Revised: 12/01 P'com_dvpt\word~omeocc.app -6 t6 1. HUNTINCTON CT. 2. OAKRIDGE LN. 20S 17 1. CURRIE CT. 2. VALLEY VIEW CT. 5. LAKEWOOD CT. SOS 18 19- Park DR. CRES3VI~N FOREST DR. 2. D~ER RIDGE L.N. TIMBER TR, 2 O' TIMBER MN~II HIGHWOOD SOUTHCREST HEIGHTS CT. BOXWOOD ~i~h Cr~k LOCATION MAP o 16 o Attachment 2 17 NEW CENTURY PL NEW CENTURY TER NEW CENTURY LN 18 Lake 4805 720S 960S 1200S 1440S DRIVE SITE 5 / 74 2O 18 ;'1 Attachment 3 OUTLO T D OUTtOT A TOWNS OF NEW CENTURY T I ', HIGHWOOD AVENUE. ' PHYLt$ PROPERTYaLINE MAP I ~ Attachment 4 SB9"18'10"W 994.8 65.00 994.2 __ I I I I I I I I o ?-L 99~.~ ~ ,,~., ~ ~ ~ ~ , m I PR~O~ H~ ~ I I 8' P~R~ B~T. I I ~ 992.6 ~ ~! ' r--- 11'~ n I I G~A~ ~ B~MARK ~ ~ ~ DRI~AY~ ~ - 99~42 1 S89q8'lO"W ~ 992.6 992.2 ~ 8 BENCHMARK TOPOF EL -~ 993,22 PINKSPIRE LANE SITE PLAN Attachment 5 HOUSE ELEVATION 10 Attachment 6 Handrails sh~ be coatim~m the full lcn~h of the iFipp~blc by des~ & PROPOSED HAIR SALON be a ~eu-c[osm~% U~! door 1-3/8" thick or a common m~pon ~aih. L FLOOR PLAN 11 ~,,~ iS I i~L ~( \3 Attachment 7 ROOM PLAN DETAIL 12 Attachment 8 LICENSES § 17-21 license will be automatically suspended or revoked five (5) days aider date of hearing. (Ord. No. 324, § 8, 6-22-72) Sec. 17-5. Same--Period of suspension. When a license is suspended under section 17-4 of this article, the period of suspension shall be not less than thirty (30) days nor more than one (1) year, such period being determined by the city council. (Ord. No. 324, § 9, 6-22-72) Sec. 17-6. Same--Mandatory revocation for certain Code violations. When any person, partnership, firm or corporation holding a license issued under this Code has been convicted for the second time by a court of competent jurisdiction for violation of any of the provisions of this Code relating to the subject matter of such license, the city council shall revoke the license of the person, partnership, firm or corporation so convicted. Such person, part- nership, firm or corporation may not make application for a new license for a period of one (1) year. (Ord. No. 324, § 10, 6-22-72) Secs. 17-7--17-20. Reserved. ARTICLE H. 'HOME OCCUPATIONS* Sec. 17-21. License requirements. (a) Home occupations shall require a license approved by the city council if any of the following circumstances would occur more than thirty (30) days each year: (1) Employment of a nonresident in the home occupation. *Editor's note--Section 8 of Ord. No. 627, adopted June 27, 1988, amended Ar~. II in its entirely to read as set out herein. Formerly, Art. II comprised §§ 17-21--17-25, pertaining to licenses for home occupations and deriving from Ord. No. 521, § 1, adopted Aug. 23, 1982. Cross reference--Fee for home occupation permit, § 36-26. Supp. No. 11 1045 13 § 17-21 MAPLEWOOD CODE (2) Customers or customers' vehicles on the premises. (3) Manufacture, assembly or processing of products or mate- rials on the premises. (4) More than one vehicle associated with the home occupation which is classified as a light commercial vehicle. (5) A vehicle(s) used in the home occupation, and parked on the premises, which exceeds a three-quarter-ton payload capacity. .. (6) Iftl~ home occupation produces any waste that should be trea~ed or re~tlated. (b) Home occupations requiring a license shall be subject to, but not limited to, the followin§ requirements: (1) No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in ~rea~er volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. The need for off-street parking shall not exceed more than three (3) off-street parking spaces for home occupation at any ~iven time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. (2) No' more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. Nonresident employees who work off-premises may be allowed to visit the prem- ises. If an on-site employee is parking on-site, off-site employees shall not leave their vehicles on-site. If there is no on-site employee vehicle parked on-site, one (1) off-site employee vehicle may be parked on-site. (3) No vehicle associated with the home occupation, including customers or employees, shall be parked on the street or block sidewalks or public easements. Private vehicles used by the residents shall not be included in this requirement. (4) An area equivalent to no more than twenty (20) percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall be used in the conduct o£ a home occupation. ($) There shall be no change visible off-premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the c~duct of a home occupation, other than one (1) si~n meeting the requirements of the city si~n code. Supp. No. 11 1046 'm 14 LICENSES § 17-22 (6) No more than twenty (20) percent of business income shall come from the sale of products produced off-site unless approved by the city council. (7) No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, odors or electrical interference detect- able to the normal senses offthe lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premises, or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. (8) There shall be no fire, safety or heali~h hazards. (9) A home occupation shall not include the repair of internal combustion engines, body repair shops, spray painting, machine shops, welding, ammunition manufacturing or sales, the sale or manufacture of firearms or knives or other objectionable uses as determined by the city. Ma- chine shops are defined as places where raw metal is fabricated, using machines that operate on more than one htmdred twenty (120) volts of current. (10) Any noncompliance with these requirements shall consti- tute grounds for the denial or revocation of the home occupation license. (11) The city. may waive any of these requirements if the home occupation is located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from a residential lot line. (12) The city council may add any additional requirements that it deems necessary to insure that the operation of the home occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses.~ (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88; Ord. No. 729, § 1, 11-14-94) Sec. 17-~. Original license approval procedure. An application for home occupation shall be filed with the director of community development. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director of community development shall prepare a recommendation to the pla~nlng commission. The planning commissi~'s recommendation shall be forwarded to the city Supp. No. 11 1047 15 § 17-22 MAPLEWOOD CODE council for a public hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the request. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the ov~ers of all properties located within three hundred fif~ (350) feet of the home occupation at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice shall also be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearin~, (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17-23. Renewal. Each license holder shall apply to the city clerk each January for ren~val. Prior to issuance of a license renewal, the city shall determine that all licensing conditions and city ordinances are being met. The city clerk shall revoke the license where compli- ance with the licensing conditions or city ordinances c~mnot be obtain~ or where the home occupation has been discontinued. Revocation may occur at any time that compliance with license conditims or city ordinance cannot be obtained. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17-24. Appeal. The ca, her or his assign of a home occupation whose license has been re~ked by the city clerk may appeal the decision to the city council. To request an appeal, a written letter or request must be submitted to the city clerk within thirty (30) days of the license revocat~n. The city council may revoke,- approve or add addi- tional cmditions to the license. The city council shah hold a public hearing, using the notification procedures in section 17-22, before deciding on the appeal. (Ord. Nb 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 1%25. Transfer of license. No licmse granted for a home occupation shall be transferable from pemon to person or plaCe to place. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Supp. No. 11 1048 [The next page. is 1057] 16 :achment 9 N R DOCUMENTS N E'W'"' CE NTU RY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'- "" 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 any other Person acquiring or owning an interest in the Property, tlieir heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. Residential Use. The Property is designed and intended exclusively as a residential areaT-Except as provided in Section 7.5, the Units shall be used by Owners and Occupants and their guests exclusively as private, residential Dwellings, and not for transient, hotel, commercial, business or other non- residential purposes; subject to the respective Member Association Governing Documents, and to applicable govemmentaI laws, regulations and ordinances. .Environmental Restrictions. The Property contains and borders on a variety of environmentally sensitive ~etlands, ponds and related Units, are subject to recorded Conservation Easements, open spaces. Certain which impose special restrictions on those Units. No Person shall take or cause to be taken any action which may materially disturb, pollute or otherwise adversely affect such environmentally sensitive areas, or which violates the Conservation Easements. Architectural Restrictions. All Improvements or other physical changes to the Property shall be made in compliance with the architectural standards and procedures set forth in Section 8. P_ermitted Business Activities. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Master Governing Docnm~ts, the following business activities shall be permitted: 7.5.1 An Owner or Occupant residing in a Dwelling may maintain a home occupation in the Dwelling, or an Auxiliary Dwelling located within the same Unit, and handle matters relating to such home occupation by telephone or correspondence therefrom; provided, that such uses (i) are incidental to the residential use; (ii) do not involve physical alteration of the Dwelling or Auxiliary Dwelling visible from the exterior; (iii) are in compliance with all governmental laws, ordinances and regulations; and (iv) do not involve any observable business activity such as signs, advertising displays, frequent deliveries, or disturbing pedestrian or vehicular traffic to and from the Dwelling or Auxiliary Dwelling by customers, vendors or employees. 7.5.2 The Master Association may maintain offices and other facilities on the Property for management and related purposes. 7.5.3 Master Declarant, Member Association Deelarants and Member Association Developers may maintain offices and other related facilities on the Property in connection with the exercise of their fights under this Master Declaration or the Member Association Governing Documents. 7.5.4 The Member Association Governing Doeurnents may, with the approval of Ma~ter Declarant so long as it has the unexpired fight to add additional Property, authorize similar types of business activities in a Member Association or Member Associations; provided the activities (i) do no materially and adversely affect the residential character of the Property, and (ii) comply with Section 7.5.1. .Auxiliary Dwellings~. An Auxiliary Dwelling may be occupied by residents in accordance with Rules and RegulatiOsns authorized by the Master Board. than 7 days, or any occupancy which includes any services customarily furnished to hotel guests, shall be presumed to be for transient purposes. Each Dwelling shall have a garage sufficient to accommodate at least two cars and additional on-site parking for an additional 2 cars. 7.4. Business Use Restricted. Home office and business activities are permitted to the extent that they are compatible with a residential neighborhood and comply with all local zoning ordinances. The Board of Directors shall have the fight to restrict home office and/or business activities that create an excessive traffic flow in the area, or that create outside storage of vehicles, equipment or materials for business purposes. 7.5. Leasing. Leasing of Lots shall be allowed, subject to reasonable regulation by the Association, and subject to the following conditions: (i) that no Lot shall be leased for transient or hotel purposes, (ii) that nO Lot may be subleased, (iii) that all leases shall be in writing, and (iv) that all leases shall provide that they are subordinate and subject to the provisions of the Governing Documents, the Rules and Regulations and the Act, and (v) that any failure of the lessee to comply with the terms of such documents shall be a default under the lease. The' Association may impose such reasonable Rules and Regulations as may be necessary to implement procedures for the leasing of Lots, consistent with this Section. 7.6. Parking. Garages and parking areas on the Property shall be used only for parking of vehicles owned or leased by Owners and Occupants and their guests, and such other incidental uses as may be authorized in writing by the Association. The use of garages, driveways and other parking areas on the Property, and the types of vehicles and personal property permitted thereon, shall be subject to regulation by the Association, including without limitation the fight of the Association to tow illegally parked vehicles or to remove unauthorized personal property. 7.7. Animals. The Board shall have the exclusive authority t° prohibit, or to allow and regulate, by Rules and Regulations, the keeping of animals on the Property. The word "animal" shall be construed in its broadest sense and shall include all living creatures except humans. Common household pets may be kept, provided that they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose. Cats must be kept on a leash or restrained within a confined area when outside the home or garage. Dogs must be kept under voice control or kept on a leash or 'restricted within a confined area when outside the home or garage. 7.8. Quiet Enioyment; Interference prohibiterl' All Owners and Occupants and their guests shall have a fight of quiet enjoyment in their respective Lots, and shall use the Property in such a manner as will not cause a nuisance, nOr unduly restrict, interfere with or impede the use and enjoyment of the Property by other Owners and Occupants and their guests. The following, in addition to others that the Association may prescribe by way of Rules and Regulation shall apply to all Lots: No clothes line or drying, yards or pet control lines shall be permitted unless concealed by hedges or screening acceptable to the ARC. No weeds, or other unsightly growths shall be permitted to grow or remain upon the premises. No refuse pile or unsightly objects shall be allowed to be placed or suffered to remain any where thereon. No Lot shall be used in whole or in part for the storage of rubbish of any character whatsoever, nor for the storage of any property or thing that will cause such Lot to appear in an unclean or untidy condition or that will be obnoxious to the eye; nor shall any sUbstance, thing, or material be kept upon any Lot that will emit foul or obnoxious odors, or that will cause any noise that will or might disturb the peace, quiet, comfort, or serenity of the occupants of surrounding property. The outside storage of an unlicensed motor vehicle, campers, snowmobiles, boats and any other vehicle with a gross vehicle weight in excess of 7000 pounds, upon the premises shall also be considered a nuisance. No parking of semi-tractors, trailers or other types of large commercial tracks or buses shall be allowed on the Property or on the Public fight-of-ways. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2003 VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Home Occupation License - Hair Salon (2497 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. The city council has approved home occupation licenses for hair salons in the past. There are now two hair salon home occupations in operation in Maplewood - one on Minnehaha Avenue and another on Maryland Avenue. Although many home occupation requests generate concerns from neighbors, our office has found hair salons to be a good fit in neighborhoods and we have not received complaints about them. Commissioner Desai asked if there has been a request for signage at the home for the hair salon? Mr. Roberts said there has been no request. The' ordinance does allow a 2 square foot sign by code that the applicant could put up if she chose to. Commissioner Dierich asked staff what the planning commission does when the homeowners association specifically forbids businesses like this as well as signage? Mr. Roberts said that is between the homeowners association and the homeowner. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if there was an issue as part of the PUD that you have to abide with the homeowner association rules and now the city is going to give a license to operate a home business that she believes is prohibited. She talked to the developer Mr. Paul Engstrom tonight and they have their lawyers looking into this at this point. He said he does not think it will be allowed but he has to check into it further. She asked if this home was finished yet? Mr. Roberts said no it is not completed yet. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to clarify which has the binding power, the city rules or the association rules? Mr. Roberts said he couldn't say which one has binding power. That is a decision made by the. lawyers. The city has rules in the code, which are in the staff report, that allow home-based businesses subject to city council approval. Homeowner's association rules are private contracts entered into with the lot buyer and the seller of the lot where the lot buyers agree to meet certain conditions. Typically, they deal with the size of the home, the square footage of the home, what they can park outside of the home, if they allow storage sheds, and what kind of fencing you can have. It is a list of do's and don'ts of the neighborhood for homeowners. It is a private contract between the private parties and the city is not part of those contracts nor is the city part of the enforcement of those contracts. If there was a conflict, he can't say who would prevail. Commissioner Rossbach asked if there are instances in the PUD motion that reference the homeowner's association rules such as it is a private road and they need to provide their own plowing and that type of thing? Mr. Roberts said that is correct but the homeowners association can form their own rules above and beyond the minimum requirements of the city. They may have adopted rules saying no home businesses, no fences, or storage sheds, where the city would allow such things. Commissioner Rossbach said he is feeling uncomfortable with this. He would like to get some more legal input from the city attorney. He would not want to be in a position where the commission votes to approve a use that would be in direct violation of a homeowner's association rule, if there were consequences for the city. He would like to see more information before going any further with this. Commissioner Pearson said he is in agreement with Mr. Rossbach. The city requires the covenants as part of these PUD's and he does not know why a person would purchase a property with covenants if the use they wanted was in violation. He said he is concerned that what the commission decides here could become a club to be used against the homeowner's association. The legality of this should be known and this should be tabled until there is feedback given to staff from the city attorney. Chairperson Fischer asked what the timetable was for this, could be tabled and is there time for these questions to be answered by the city attorney? Mr. Roberts said the city is on a 60-day time restriction, unless the applicant agrees to the time extension. He said the city is obligated to provide a decision by March 24, 2003, which means it could come back to the. planning commission meeting on March 17, 2003. At that point !t would go to the city council meeting on March 31,2003. Mr. Roberts said he is not a lawyer and reminded the commission that the charge of the planning commission is to review and use the city ordinances and the city regulations. There is no planning commission responsibility with what the homeowner's rules are. It may put the homeowner in an awkward position if there are conflicts there but that is their problem, not the planning commissions. The planning commissions responsibility is to determine if it meets the intent and if the application meets the city's expectations for home occupations. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if they had known the homeowners association covenants and is that why that information was not included in the staff report? Mr. Roberts said no, he has not seen anything in writing relating to the covenants of the neighborhood. The developer Mr. Engstrom said he was concerned about this home occupation license but that was the extent of it. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if it is a requirement that the city keeps the homeowners association rules on file? Mr. Roberts said the city often requests that the city reviews the homeowner association rules but they don't necessarily have the final recorded documents. Commissioner Trippler asked if the homeowners association was notified about this home occupation license? Mr. Roberts said the developer was notified and they are still the controlling interest in the homeowners association. Commissioner Mueller said he agrees with Mr. Roberts that the planning commission has to make their decisions based on what they know about the city ordinances. The planning commission can't have advanced knowledge of every neighborhood homeowners association, contract or covenant before making final decisions. After the city makes a decision, it is up to the homeowner and the association, contractor or developer to work things out, Commissioner Pearson said he deals with rules of the neighborhood all the time. This is a nonconforming use for the zoning that is there and until there is further information provided from the city attorney and or the homeowners association, he would not feel comfortable voting on this. Commissioner Desai asked staff if the city gets involved in complaints from the neighborhood when the homeowner association rules get broken? Mr. Roberts said no. Commissioner Desai said that is a clear indication to him that the city should base their decision on the city's ordinances and not on the homeowners association. Commissioner Rossbach said which is exactly why he wonders which one governs, the city's decision or the homeowner's association? Chairperson Fischer said she is uncomfortable with a double standard if the city uses the covenants in "addition to" or "in lieu of" the city's rules for making a recommendation. Staff would have to ask the city attorney how the planning commission avoids that, Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the planning commission. The applicant, Debra Siedenburg and her husband, Shannon Siedenburg at 5359 Heath Avenue North in Oakdale, addressed the commission. They did receive some documents from the developer stating it would be okay to have a hair salon as a home occupation. They said they would be comfortable tabling this until more information is provided to the planning commission. They don't want to do anything against the rules or illegal and would get more information for staff from the developer. Commissioner Rossbach moved to table this item until March 17, 2003. More information will need to be provided by the city attorney to provide further direction. COmmissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed and so the request is tabled until March 17, 2003. 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 private 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 oveday district must met all regulations of the base distdct in which it was originally located plus those in the oveday 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 BC 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 district would not be an appropriate tool for creating design standards within this area. An alternative would be to create an entirely new zoning district. This district would allow for a mixture of land uses and would promote the development/redevelopment of an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. The city could implement the new zoning district in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other areas of the city, such as the Gladstone neighborhood, where there is a need for redevelopment to create a 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 al! 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 overlay 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 scenado 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 March 10, 2003 not formally adopted the new ordinance, but St. Paul city staff foresees the adoption of this ordinance this spring, 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 distdct 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 distdct 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). Staffs 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 district 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 pdmary 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 Conoreoate Living: 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 distdct 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 distdct 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 Amedca) 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 oveday 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 ddve- 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, RI. 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 in put 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 ddve 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 cars 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-Work Definition 4. Maplewood Conditional Use Permit Ordinance 5. 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 Oveday Districts E. St. Paul Traditional Neighborhood Zoning Distdct F. TN2 Secondary and Carriage House Definitions Hillcrest Village Design Standards 10 March 10, 2003 Attachment 1 14 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUSINESS COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT The Maplewood City Council approves the following' changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section i. This amendment revises Section 36-151 to allow pawnbrokers and currency exchanges within the Business Commercial and Ught Manufactur~g zoning districts with a conditional use permit if at least five hun dre~ (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) Reserved. Section 36.151 (b). Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit (13). Pawnbroker.as defined in section 22. All pawnbrokers are subiect to the'followin.q: 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.' (15) Currency Exchanqe as defined in section 22. 'All currency exchanqes are subiect to the followinq: 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 re.qutated in section 22 of the city code. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewaod City Council approved this ordinance on ,2002. A~est Mayor City Clerk Ayes - Nays - 15 (a) (b) -7 A secondary dwellina unit shall be located within a one-family dwelling. The appearance of the building 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. 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 secondmT 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 for 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-family dWelling in the zoning district. (i) The lot shall have street frontao~e, including both streets for comer lots, at least twentw'-five (25) feet greater than the minimum lot width required for 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 a~c' Standards and conditions: (a) A carriage house dwelling unit shall be located within a building that is accessory to a one-family, two-family, ttu'ee-family or townhouse dwelling, and located in the rear yard. (b) Any exterior chan,,oes 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 dwellino_ unit may not contain more than thirty (30) percent of the total floor area on the zoning2 lot. (d) There shall be no more than one secondary or carriage house dwelling on a zoning lot. (e) The minimum lot area shall be 2500 square feet greater than the minimum lot area required for the main (principal) building in the zoning district. (fl An accesso~T building2 with a carriage house dwelling shall meet all requirements for accesso~' buildings, provided, however, that it may be up to twenty-five (25) feet in hei=ht. If walls of a carriage house dwelling facin~ interior lot lines contain windows or other openings, the wall shall be set back at least eight (8) feet f¥om the lot line. {g) Except in the TN3 Traditional Neighborhood Development District. at least one dwellino 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 comer lots. at least twenW-five (25) feet ~oreater than the minimum lot width required for the main (principal) building in the zoning district. 16 (f) Service and teaching 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 Homing 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 track or small van, nor any additional vehicles except those for permitted employees identified under paragraph (d). (h) 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. (i) 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 tk.e requirements (a) through (g). (ki) For the purposes of this sectiono~,v.~"~'~;":o:^'~..o..., ,.f'~, j, "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. Live-wor~k unit~ 65.142. ~ ~ ~nit ~n 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 facing the primary abutting public street. (b) The dwelling unit component must be located above or behind the work space, and maintain 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 thirty (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 underground/enclosed. (e) The size and nature of the work space shall be lirnited 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 establiskments, homecrafts which are typically considered accessory' to a dwelling unit. or limited retailing, by appointment ontv, associated with fine arts, crafts, or personal se~wices. 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 manuthcturinz business, a commercial food se~wice requiring a license, a limousine business or auto service or repair ~br any vehicles other than those rezistered to residents of the propertY. Sec. 65.143. Mixed residential and commercial use. Standards and conditions in B1-B3 Business Districts: 3 17 Attachment 4 0 0 0 ~ 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 carded 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 other facilities .... ~; .... : .... ~: ..... ;~*' '~ ...... '; .... c **. .... , .....~ ..,~;~ o.....~.~*~*;~ I shall be in accordance with current city specifications. Such specifications shall be developed by the c-~ planning coordinator administrator, traffic engineer and city [ fire marshal, and shall be approved by the planning commission, and filed with the city clerk. Co) A ten-foot buffer area with screen planting and an obscuring wall or fence shall be required along any property line adjoin, lng an existing residence or adjci:'2ng ;'acant ~ residentially zoned property use. (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 (including lubricating facilities) ~-~ ............ ; ......... ~ ..... 1 ......... u ..................... may be permitted on a lot of twelve thousand (12,000) square feet, subject to all other provisions herein required. .~Idditioncd ,s'tanctard,¥ and conditions in Traditional Nei,ghborhood Districa" id) All vehicles awaiting repair or pickup shall be stored on the site within enclosed buildings or defined parking spaces in compliance with Sec. (e) The principal building shall comply with the dimensional standards and design guidelines applicable to Traditional Neighborhood Districts. except that the maximufiq setback requirement may be modified by the planning commission so that pump islands may be placed in front of the building if this arrangement is considered preferable for circulation, aesthetics or bufferin__, of neighboring uses. (f) There shall be no exterior storage or sales of goods or equipment, other than the dispensing of motor fuel. Attachment 5 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 of 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 (I 5,000) 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 so 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 shall 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.,~,o* ....... ,,, by a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet measured from property line to property line; provided, however, that a modification may be granted pursuant to section 614.¢500 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. 2O (4) The proposed use meets all other requirements for speeia4 conditional use permits provided in section 614.3_500. Sec. 65.707. A-.'.to !aun~rlcs Car wash. Standards and conditions: (a) ~ 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 auto car 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 facility 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 parking structure facade adiacent 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,~,,~ ~,~oa ..... -~-,,~ w----~;* storage on the parking lot. (c)l~ 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 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). O. (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). g. ~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 I lb): 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 provisions:,._ £c): All composting materials in the active composting stage shall be Un-ned or aerated by a blower system at least two (2) times per morith or more often as required:,_. The solid waste compost 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 berms, trees or other means deemed appropriate by the planning commission or zonin~ administrator. The site may have greenhouses for composting solid waste materials.-:._ The solid waste con:post facilit~2ies 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:,_. [f): The height of the compost pile(s) shall be limited to no higher than fifteen (15) feet above grade~._ Lg): The operator of the scud waste ccm?czt 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~: ih): Theo,~-~,o~;~ ..... ,,~,o~,,* ......... ~,,,,,vvo~* facility shall have available m4eas~ a loader such as a from end loader, a windrow turner, a rotary screening trait and any other equipment deemed necessary by the city; and. ii): A site plan illustrating compliance with 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 conuuission or zoning administrator. Sec. 65.848. Solid waste transfer station. An intermediate facility in which gan'baRe, refuse and other solid waste collected from any source is temporarily deposited to await transportation to a waste facility. This includes sites for the sorting of construction and demolition material. [This definition is recommended by LIEP staffto be consistent with license definitions.] ARTICLE VII. 65.900. ACCESSORY USES See. 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 63g.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: ~¢) 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. (bg) Accessory off-street loading, subject to the off-street loading regulations for the district in which the zoning lot is located. 22 (c~) 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, uuless such storage is excluded in the applicable district regulations. 11 ) Trash containers, including garbage dumpsters, in accordance with Chapter 357 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 10) Accessory signs, subject to the sign regulations for the district in which the zoning lot is located. Uses clearly incidental to a main use such as, but not limited to, offices of an industrial or commercial complex located on the site of the commercial or industrial complex; greenhouses located on the premises as incidental to a florist. (i-l-) 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.] 0_-3) Swimming pools for the use of the occupants of a residence or their guests. 64) 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. (14-~) 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 market or auto se,wice station. [This clarifies existing Zoning Administrator practice.] (n~ ! 4) 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 electromagnefically 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 0 0 24 0 0 0 25