Loading...
89-1576 WHITE - C1TV CLERK 1 � �HARV•-DEPA TMENT COI1i1C11 �" ' / s�ue� �. MAVOR GITY OF AINT PATIL File NO. D� LD7� Ordi dnce Ordinance N0. �7(Od / Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Restaurants and fast-food restaur nts. Restaurants that also are re uired to have cit li uor lice ses must rovide arkin at the rate s ecified in the Saint Paul Le is ative Code Cha ter 409.08 11 or Cha ter 410.04 . m. Retail stores includin carr -ou restaurants, except as otherwise specified herein. Sectio 8. That section 62.104 of the Saint aul Legislative Code be and is hereby amended as follows: (13) Landscaping. For any parking facil ty, other than a parking garage, landscaping shall be provided to bu fer the facility from adjacent properties and from the public righ -of-way; reduce the visual , glare and heat effects of large expanses of p vement; and provide areas for the retention and absorption of stormwa er run-off. All required yards and any underdeveloped space shall be 1 ndscaped using materials such as trees, shrubs, sod or groundcover p ants. In addition to perimeter landscaping, parking lots for more han fifty (50) cars shall contain planted islands. As a minimum, one square foot of landscaped area shall be provided for every ten (10) squa e feet of paving. A fast-food restaurant that is not art of a r ail stri center or lanned sho in center sha 1 rovide as a minimum 1.5 s uare eet o andsca e area for ever ten 10 s uare feet of avin . Any landscaped area sha be p anted and maintained in accordan e with Section 62.109. Secti n 9. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, approval and ublication. COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimond �� �l Itl FaVO[ Planninn an �eewi� Rettman B '� Scheibel � Against Y Sonnen Wilson �T 2 �j� Form Appr v d by City Att ney Adopted by Council: Date j Certified Pas e � Council Sec a By ` � By � " Approv May • �� 2 7 � Ap o by Mayor for b is ion t Council pUgi,� a�'0 v — � 1989 .s • • �p' , 'w • . �-��`6� DEPARTMENT/OFFlCE/COUNqL ' DATE INITIA D �� ^ /7� PED - P1 anni ng s-� s9 GREEN SH No. ��n�A� CONTACT PERSON 6 PHONE DEPARTMENT aRECTOR �CRY COUNqL Donna Datsko x3395 � GTYAITORNEY �dTYCLERK MUST BE ON COUNCIL AOENDA BY(DAT� ROUTINO BUOOET DIRECTOR �FIN.8 MOT.SERVI MAYOR(�i ASSIBT -� ❑P 1 a n n i n TOTAL#�OF SIGNATURE PAGE8-� (CLIP AL L ATION8 FOR 81GNATUR� ACTWN RE�UESTED: Enact zoning text changes related to res au ants. RECOMMENDATIONB:Approve(/q a ReJect(R) (�UNqL ITTEE/RESBARCH REPORT OPTIONAL A PLANNINO COMMIBSION _CIVIL SE � ANALYBT PHONE NO. _CIB COMMITTEE _ AI�CRV�+�� q srn� — �a'"E _p,�,��„� _ MA1fOR'S OFFICE SUPPORTS WFIICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? INfT1ATIN0 PR08LEM.ISSUE.OPPORTUNITY(Who.What,When,Where,Wh»: These text amendments will change the 1 ng age (definitions) in the Zoning Code related to restaurants and will change, in part w ich zoning districts some restaurants may be established. , � � I I ADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: - clarify restaurant definitions and lo at onal criteria - add new conditions for free standing as -food restaurants in the B-3 zoning district - add new language related to drive-thr w ndows and restaurants ^, DISADVANTA(�ES IF APPROVED: None o�snov�wriwes iF r�or��oveo: - restaurants with drive-thru windows em in unregulated - restaurant definitions remain unclea Councii Research Center, AUG 2 31989 TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION s N/A C�T/i�VENUE BUDOETED(qRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDINO SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FlNANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPWI� • • w- • rt' • r � � ' .� . NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE(�REEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASINC3 OFFICE(PHONE NO.298-4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are preferred routings for the five most nequent rypes of documeMS: CONTRACTS (assumes authOryzed COUNqL RESOLUTION (Amend, Bdgts./ budget exists) Accept. (3rants) 1. Outside Agency 1. .Department Director 2. Initiating Department 2. Bud�et Director 3. City Attorney 3. City Attomey 4. Mayor 4. Mayor/Asaistant 5. Finance&Mgmt Svcs. Direetor 5. City GouncN � 6. Finance Accounting 8. Chief Accountant, Fin&Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Budget COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all ofhers) Revision) and ORDINANCE 1. Activity Manager 1. Initiating Department Director 2. DepartmeM Accountant 2• �Y A�eY 3. Department Director 3. MayoNAssistaM 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, Fin &Mgmt Svcs: ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (all others) 1. Initiating Department ° 2. City Attomey 3. MayorlAssistant 4. Ciry Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the#of pages on which signatures are required and reli each of these pa�e . ACTION REOUESTED Describe what the project/request seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of importance,wh�hever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write complete seMe�. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete if the issue in question haa been preseMed before any body, pubHc or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? � Indicate which Council objective(s)your projecUrequest supports by listing the key word(s)(HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET, SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COAAPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) CAUNCIL COMMITTEElRESEARCH REPORT-OPTIONAL AS REQUE5TED BY COUNCIL INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY Explain the situatfon or conditlons that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simpy an annual budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are apeciflc ways in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens will beneflt from this projecUaction. OISADVAINTAGES.IF APPROVE� . What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this projecUrequest produce if it is passed(e.g.,traffic delays, noise, tax increases or assessmenta)?To Whom?When?For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved? Inability to deliver service?Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate?Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost?Who is going to pay? : . . . . . . ���_,s�� � Res�a��aa�3-����re-���--A-bds�qess-es� ��}�q�e��-wqese-��=�Rfi��d�-��s�Ae�s-�s �qe-se����g-e�-€eed3-����ea-�esse��s- �-�e�e�ages-�e-�qe-s�s�er�e�-�p-a Fea��r-�e-seflsdr�e-s�a�e;-��-�ad��r���a� se��r�Agss-a��-wqe�e-�qe-sb��e�e� se�sb�es-�bese-€ee�s3-��e�e�-�esse��s ef-�e�re�ages-��-a�-a��e�e���e-�afked ��ea-�be-�fe��ses: '�.� � Restaurant, carr -out. A reta�:l food service business which sells read -to-eat foods, usuall in b lk antities, rimaril for consum tion off the remises. A carr -out restau ant that has more than imited seating 12 or fewer seats , or 75 s uare feet f atron area, shall be deemed to be a restaurant for zoning purposes. Res�ab�a��3-�as�-#ee�:--A-��s�aess-es a �sq�ea�-wqese-���Ae��a�-�ds�aess-�s �qe-se����g-e�-��e-��=e�a�ed3-���sl�-e� e�3 ap�-�askage�-€ee�s-��-a �ea�y-�e-se�s��e-s�a�e3-�p-�qd}�r��da� se��r'qgs3-€ef-se�s��q��e�-e�-e�-e��-��e ��er��ses3-a��-wqe�e-�qe-�asl�age3-w�a� �q�-e eefl�a�ae�-��a-e�-e�-wq}eq-�be-�sed �s-se��-�s-�a�e�;-��a���s-ef-e�qe�-�b s�a�se- #-a-�e�fe���qa��e-aa�-��s�esa��e fla��fe: a Restaurant, fast-food. A ublic eatin place desi ed for ra id food deliver to customers seated �n their automobi es or from a ounter or drive-thru window, w�th minimal ersonal servi ce and for consu tion on or off the remises. All restaurants with drive thru service ar considered fast-food restaurants. ,, , Any restaurant whose desi n or rinci al method of o era�'on includes four or more of the following characteristics sha 1 be deemed a f t-food restaurant for zoning ur oses: 1 45 ercent r more of the floor a ea is devoted to food re aration, em o ee work s ace and customer service a ea, 2 a ermanent menu board is rovided from which to select and ord r food, (3) if a chain or franchised restaurant, stand rdized f oor ans are u d over severa ocations, 4 customers ay for food before consuming it, 5 self-service condiment bar is rovided, 6 trash ece tac es are rovided fo se f-service bussin , 7 furnishin an indicate hard finished, stationar atin arran ements, and 8 most main cours food items are re- acka ed ather than made to order. Sec ion 3. That section 60.522 of the Sai t Paul Legislative Code be and is hereby amended as follows: (2) Retail businesses which supply c mmodities on the premises, such as, ut not limited to, groceries, meats dairy products, baked goods or other �, foods, drugs, dry goods, clothin and notions, hardware, books, 1 stationery, plants, carr -out re taurants and hobby supplies. . . . . (�"�.��`��� Sectio 4. That �ection 60.532 of the Saint aul Legislative Code be and is hereby��mended as follows: � � d. Restauran�s e�-e�be�-��a�es-se��� g-�eed-e�-�e�re�ages3-e�se��-���ve-�� ef-€as�-�ea�-fes�a��aa�s:and fast food restaurants when incor orated within a multi-use retail center r anned sho ing center and which do not rovide drive-thru window ervice. Sectio 5. That section 60.54� of the Saint Paul Legislative Code be and is hereby amended as follows: (4) Restaurants, fast food a�d-����re-��, subject to the following conditions : d. Site shall have a minimum of 100 feet of street frontage on its principal access street. e. Trash rece tacles shall be house in a three-sided masonr enclosure six feet hi h, or e ual in hei to the dum ster, whichever is greater, and have an entrance a e constructed of a durable, o a ue material . f. A litter collection lan shall b deµ�lo ed and submitted to the Planning Commission which obli es the restaurant o erator to kee the area surroundin said resta rant fr�e of restaurant itter for a reasonable specified distance. g. S eaker box sounds from drive-t ru lane sha� l not be audible from abutting residential property. h. A landsca ed area not less than 15 percent of }�� e im ervious surface area of the lot shall be rovid d and maintaine �� dzi_Impact on adjoining property by use of the site may� not result in the following: � "� 1. Loud, boisterous, and dist rbing noise levels. �� 2. Hazardous traffic conditio s. 3. Offensive, obnoxious, and isturbing odors. 4: E�sess��re-����e�: 5z4.Excessive artificial lighting. 6:5.Substantial decrease in ad oining property values. �: A�y-e�qe�-se�����ea-��se� �s�ea�-w���-�qe-�ease�a��e-bse-aa� ep�e�r�ae��-e#'-dd36�R�R9-�� �e��y-ap�-��sea�}��e��-w��q-�qe-qea��b3 sa�e�y3-�ae�a��3-aad-ge�ef �-we�€afe-e�-�qe-a�3e���pg-eer��+�fl���: . ; . . . . . , � ��s�� '�� Secti on 6. That sectib,n 60.773 of the Saint ul Legislative Code be and is hereby amended to read as follows: (6) Restaurants, fast-food, subject to t e following conditions: d. Site shall have a minimum of 100 eet of street fronta e on its principal access street. e. Trash rece tacles shall be housed in a three-sided masonr enclosure six feet hi h, or e ual in hei ht to the dum ster, whichever is reater, and have an entrance at constructed of a durable, o a ue materia . f. A litter collection lan shall'�be develo ed and submitted to the Plannin Commission which obli at s the restaurant o erator to kee the area surroundin said restaur t free of restaurant litter for a reasonable speci ied distance. .� �S eaker box sounds from drive-thr lan shall not be audible from abutting residential property. � � h. A landsca ed area not less than 1 ercent f the im ervious surface area of the lot shall be rovided and mainta'ned. .. d:i . Impact on adjoining property by u e of the site��may not result in the following: `� 1. Loud, boisterous, and distur ing noise levels.� � 2. Hazardous traffic conditions � 3. Offensive, obnoxious, and di turbing odors. �'�;, � 4: E�Eess�ve-����e�: \`, E, � 5:4.Excessive artificial lighting �°,` 6:5.Substantial decrease in adjoi ing property values. �: Apy-e�qef-ee�d���efl-��eea5�s ep�-w��q-�qe-fease�a��e-bse-a�� ``. ep3sy�ep�-e�-a��e����g-��e�e ��r-a��-��eeas���e��-w��q-�qe-qea��q3 sa#e�y3-�e�a�s3-a�d-ge�e�a�- e�#'a�e-e#'-�qe-ad�e���flg-ee�r�ba���,e Sectio 7. That section 62.103(g) of the Sai t Paul Legislative Code be and is hereby amended as follows: (3) Business and commercial . e. Es�a���sbr�eq�-€ef-sa�e-a�d-seas�� ��e�-e�-�be-��er��ses-e�-�e�re�a�es3 #'ee�-e�-�e€�esq�e��s� . � ���5'� '��$C1TY OP �� k s CITY OF SAINT PAUL a ����;��,,,, ; DEPARTMEN OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �o '��� �� � he' DIVISION OF PLANNING 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 786• 612-228-3270 GEORGE LATIMER M E 0 R A N D U M MAYOR ��ZZ- � �� DATE: Augus t 18, 19 8 9 Z--i,� �� �� �� � T0: Mayor George Lati er {�\ J�� �,�C�.--�C� �'0'�-�. FROM: Pe Reichert� ut D' ector for Plannin ' `��-- ggy , P y g RE: Zoning Code Text Amendme ts: Restaurant Definitions ,1 (',� � 7 � �� �--N�-��r ' {� �. Attached for your review and transmi tal to the City Council is the Restaurant Definitions Study including the rela ed zoning code text amendments. Last Friday the Planning Commission passe a resolution by a unanimous vote to recommend adoption of the changes ou lined in the report. The Commission studied and recommend d changes in three areas: (1) new definitions are proposed for "restau ants", "fast-food" restaurants and "carry out" restaurants; (2) some change$ a e recommended for where new restaurants could be located, in particular, a " ast-food" restaurant which is not free-standing cou?d be permitted in B-2 zone if it is part of a planned shopping center or large, multi-use etail center, and (3) the zoning enforcement should ensure that over ime, conditions of Special Condition Use Permits granted to a restaurant are eing met. The new definitions also state that any new restaurant which will h ve a drive-thru window is considered a "fast-food" restaurant for zoning pu poses. The Commission has studied this issu for well over a year and the proposed changes represent their thoughtful a proach to this complicated subject. PAR/ws cc: Ken Johnson Jan Gasterland . . � �,s�� � �t*T o, CITY OF AINT PAUL o�+� �M OFFICE O THE MAYOR '� iiu�ii°n : � �►� ^a 347 C TY HALL ���� SAINT PAUL, INNESOTA 55102 GEORGELATIMER (612 298-4323 MAYOR August 22, 1989 City Council President James Scheibel And Members of the City Council Seventh Floor, City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Council President Scheibel and C'ty Councilmembers: In August 1987, the Planning Commiss' n initiated a study of restaurant uses in the city at the request of the Ci Council. The purpose of the study was to review the existing restaurant de initions and regulations in the Zoning Code and make recommendations where ange was warranted. On August 11, 1989, the Commission unanimously adopted a resolution recommending proposed restaurant zoning text changes they ad identified. The study and ordinance which are at ached to this letter will detail the Commission's findings and their reco endations. It represents their usual thoughtful approach to a complicated subject and I am pleased to transmit this material to you. Very truly , o rs, 1 or e May GL:ws Attachment cc: Peggy Reichert S�o 46 . ��,��� city of saint paul P���9 commission resolu ion file number 89-67 date Au�ust 11, 1989 RESTAURANT DEFINITIONS 4 -ACRE STUDY RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council ' authorized under Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357(5) and Section 64.400 f the Saint Paul Legislative Code to initiate a 40-Acre Study for the purp se of amending the text of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was equested by the City Council in its Resolution 87-1093, to examine the is ues and zoning regulations pertaining to restaurants in the city for the purpo e of considering amendments to Chapters 60 through 62 of the Saint Paul Legis ative Code and submitting its recommendations to them; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission rele sed proposed amendments related to the ' definition and regulation of restaura t uses for public review on May 12, 1989 and held a public hearing on June 23, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in ccordance with state statutes, has determined: 1. That the number of real estate escriptions affected by the amendment renders the obtaining of writte consent impractical; 2. That a city-wide study of resta rants has been made; 3. That the proposed amendments ar related to the overall needs of the co�unity, to existing land use and to plans for future land use; and 4. That proper notice of the heari g was given in the Pioneer Press and Dispatch on June 1, 8 and 15, 1 89. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED� that he Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning Code amendmen attached hereto proposing new definitions and regulations for rest rant uses, and directs the Planning Administration to forward the study d this resolution to the Mayor and City Council for their review and action. moved by Z=� �a'�d �'1�/ HIRTE I D Co�itS�' �.r� in fav�or Una_.nim°us 'PIQNbu�g GoWU�A,t�V�W► a�lt'1St 'I��ol�fi�w - - �� � . Members" � '�,� �1 - Biil Wilson, chair CITY OF S INT PAUL Tom Dimond ;;;;����� � Kiki Sonnen OFFICE OF TA CITY COIINCII,� Date: September 13, 1 89 . . RECEIVED WILLIAM L. WILSON Commit ee Repor� MARK VOERDING Councilman $�� 1� ��9 Legislacive Aide To: Saint Paul City Council c�-�Y cLERt< From : Housing and Econo ic Development Committee Bill Wilson, Chair 1. Approval of Minutes MINUTES of the AUGUST 9, 1989, committee meeting were APPROVED. 2. Ordinance amending Chapter 33 f the Legislative Code pertaining to building permit posting (C.F. 89-1505) _ COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 3. Ordinanc�e amending�Chapter 60 f the Legislative Code pertaining to zoning text changes related to restaurants (C.F. 89-1576) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL (Any necessary amendment to be completed by third reading. A companion licensing ordinance, if neede , should be ready by the same time.7 CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/293-4646 , • - . 8�i 48 . � . ' / r G�i/�,7 v� Q �71��9 � 1 . � 1 Rest urant De niti ns Stud � y � � � � � � I O Co�,ts a�5'�'`'`�'� � � � � � � Prepared by th cQivision of Planning Department of Plannin and Economic Development � ' City all Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, innesota 55102 � � � ��i�� � � � � � � � D � RESTAURANT DEFINITION S D AND RELATED TERT AMLNDMENTS � PURPOSL: The purpose of the Restaurant Defi it ons Study is to review existing Zoning � Code restaurant regulations and to de ermine if changes are needed. The study is divided into two parts; Part On i the background analysis of the existing zoning regulations and Part Two is co posed of the zoning text amendments ' recommended in Part One. BACKGROIIND: ' The city now distinguishes between th ee types of restaurants in its Zoning Code: "restaurants", "fast-food" r st urants, and "drive-in" restaurants. These distinctions were first esta li hed in 1973 and were based on the � premise that different types of re ta rants have different impacts on neighboring property and therefore sh uld be regulated differently. While these definitions have remained us fu for the most part, the restaurant � industry has evolved new marketing st ategies and methods of operation that blur the earlier distinctions and on use the once clear zoning classification of restaurant types. �i In the last three to five years se er 1 zoning reviews for proposed restaurants in locations throughou t city have made it clear that the existing ways restaurants are regu at in the Zoning Code leaves much to be desired. In 1987 the City Council st ed that the existing Zoning Code ', provisions for restaurants should e -examined in light of current restaurant technology and operatio . The Council enacted a moratorium on new I restaurants with drive-thru windows i the B-2 zoning districts and they requested that the city's Planning o ission examine the issues surrounding restaurant uses and submit its reco e dations to them. � FINDINGS: 1. There are problems with the exi ti g restaurant definitions: (1) although � quite detailed, the definitions do ot accurately reflect or define the present inventory of restaurants in th city, and (2) the definitions can not accommodate emerging trends in the es aurant industry. � 2. There are problems with the exi ti g locational requirements found in the Zoning Code: (1) existing patterns f trip zoning often places low density residential uses adjoining intense o ercial uses; restaurants permitted to � locate in those areas often do not ro ide enough protection to the adjoining districts, (2) current locational r qu rements prohibits some types of restaurants in areas which are suit bl for their operation, and (3) existing buffering requirements by zoning di tr ct are often inadequate and have been � insufficiently enforced over time. 3. Administration and enforcement f he Zoning Code related to restaurant � uses has been uneven, in part becau e he regulations were unclear and the staff complement for zoning enforce en was small. DIVISION OF PLANNING•DEPARTMENT OF PLANN NG AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•CITY OF SAINT PAUL CITY HALL ANNEX•25 WEST FOURTH STREET, S IN PAUL, MINNESOTA, 55102 ' . � ��_,`�'� 1 � RECOI�II�ENDATIONS: � 1. Replace existing definitions. There will still be three types of rest urants defined: "restaurant", , "carry-out" restaurant, and "fast-food" restaurant. Each of the new definitions eliminates the references t type of containers or type of food that are now found in the existing defi itions. � The new definition for "fast-food" rest urant is broadened to include the former separately defined "drive-in" re taurant. "Carry-out" restaurants are not currently defined in the Zoning Cod ; they are retail food business which ' function predominately as take-out but hich may have up to 12 chairs or 75 square feet of patron area, whichever i less. � 2. Clarify the Iocational requirements for each type of restaurant. "Carry-out" restaurants function as ret il businesses and are now classified as retail if they do not provide patron seating. The study recommends that ' this operation is a type of restaurant f it has a few chairs or small seating area and that it be a permitted use in he B-1 district, as it now is regulated. � "Restaurants" would remain permitted us s in the B-2 district. � "Fast-food" restaurants are recommended to become permitted uses in the B-2 district if they are not free-standing, that is, if they are part of a "planned shopping center" or located in a "multi-use retail center" which has at least 20,000 gross square feet. A n w definition is provided for ' "multi-use retail center" . "Fast-food" restaurants that are free-standing or that have a drive-thru window would rem in conditional uses subject to Planning Commission review and approval in the B-3 district. New conditions � of review are recommended. In the B-2C district, the current regul tion prohibiting restaurants is retained. ' 3. Encourage the Zoning Administrator (1) monitor Special Condition Use Permits granted to restaurants to ensur continued compliance with the � conditions of the permit, (2) require t t furnishing plans be made available to help determine what type of restauran is being proposed and (3) work with the Planning Commission to ensure that t e restaurant characteristics found in � the "fast food" definition remain conte orary. For more information about this study co tact Donna Datsko, City Planner, at 228-3395. � � � 1 �-� � ���� t � � � RESTAURANT EFINITIONS STUDY � And Proposed Text Amendments I � 1 � 1 1 � A ust 1989 ' Saint Paul P nning Commission � � Department of Planni g and Economic Development Divisi n of Planning City f Saint Paul � 1100 C ty Hall Annex 25 Wes Fourth Street Saint Pau Minnesota 55102 � � ! ��_���� � TABLE OF ONTENTS Paae 1 PART ONE � RESTAURANT DEFINITIONS STUDY I. INTRODUCTION 1 � A. Purpose l B. Background 1 � II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 3 � III. TYPES OF RESTAURANTS AND THEIR EFINITIONS 4 A. Existing Definitions 4 � B. Trends in the Restaurant Industry 4 C. Problems with Existing Definitions 6 D. Restaurant Definition Alternatives 8 � E. Impact on Other Ordinances 11 � IV.LOCATING RESTAURANTS APPROPRIA ELY 13 A. Existing Locational Requirements 13 B. Problems with Locational Requirement 14 ' C. Restaurant Location Alternatives 15 D. Sidewalk Cafes 18 � V. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMEN 19 A. Existing Methods 19 � B. Recommendations for Changes in Admi istrative Procedures 19 PART TWO ! ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS 21 � Appendices: Appendix A � A Sample of Other Cities' Restaurant Defini ions 26 Appendix B � List of Sources 30 � � � � �_i.��� � I. INT DUCTION � � A. PURPOSE The restaurant industry is a growth industr in the U.S. Research from the National Restaurant Association indicates that the a erage customer patronizes a food establishment � 192 times each year. Restaurant sales volu e rose nationally from $47 billion in 1979 to $89 billion in 1982 and a U.S.D.A. economi t who monitors trends in the food industry predicts that restaurant revenues will rise y 18 percent between 1983 and 1990 (American � Demographics, January 1985, March 1986). Restaurants are also a vital part of the ur n experience. We meet our friends there and conduct business there. They provide opp rtunities for recreation and employment (lots of � employment according to the U.S. Census), and they add to the character of a neighborhood and the city. We identify where we live b the popular restaurant on our corner or we vilify another area as remote and barren f r its lack of amenities such as restaurants. � When properly located, designed and oper ted, restaurants are a significant asset to the community. � However, some aspects of restaurant oper tions can have serious negative impacts on adjoining property. Restaurants may gen rate unpleasant cooking odors, increase the likelihood of litter by serving on disposab e materials, or increase noise by their method of operation and increase traffic congestion ear their location. The severity of these impacts � is moderated by the type of restaurant an the uses of adjoining property. Because of this potential for land use and other conflicts the city regulates the operation of restaurants through both licensing and zoning. � Licensing requirements are imposed prim rily to insure that minimum public health standards are maintained by the restaura t operators, while zoning requirements are imposed to regulate land use, and thereb the relationship with neighboring properties. � The purpose of this report is to review t e zoning regulations for restaurant uses in Saint Paul, to identify problems and to recom end changes as needed. The report is divided into � two parts; Part One is the background st dy and Part Two is composed of the zoning text amendments suggested in Part One. � B. BACKGROUND � The city now distinguishes between thre types of restaurants in its Zoning Code: "restaurant", "drive-in" and "fast-food". hese distinctions were first established in 1973 and were based on the premise that diff rent types of restaurants have different impacts � on the community and should be regula d differently. While these definitions have remai�ed useful for the most part, the r staurant industry has evolved new marketing strategies and methods of operation tha blur the earlier distinctions and confuse the once clear zoning classification of restaurant types. � � 1 � � ���'q�i��� � For example, one small ethnic restaurant located in a large mixed-use, commercial - residential building was technically classified as a "fast-food" restaurant because its use of � disposable dinnerware fit within the zoning def' ition of a "fast-food" restaurant. The restaurant operator came before the Planning C mmission, which determined that the proposal was most similar to a "restaurant" and erefore permitted at that location. In another instance the operator of a nationally fr nchised chicken restaurant (which � included a drive-thru window) was classified a "restaurant" rather than a "fast-food" restaurant, and permitted to locate in a more re trictive zoning district because he chose to use stoneware dinner plates. � These and similar examples have caused consid rable concern among City Council members and neighborhood groups alike. The Council e pressed its opinion in Resolution 87-1093 � that the existing Zoning Code provisions shoul be re-examined in light of current restaurant technology and operations. They al o enacted a two year moratorium on new restaurants with drive-thru windows in the B- community business zoning districts. The Council requested that the Planning Commissi n examine the issues surrounding restaurant � uses and submit its recommendations to them. This study responds to the Council's request. t identifies three major issue areas for � zoning: (1) restaurant definitions, (2) restaur t locations and (3) administration and enforcement. These issues are analyzed in th text which follows and alternatives are recommended. � � � • � � � � � � �, 2 � f ��-�.��� � II. SUMMARY OF REC MMENDATIONS � This report recommends that the current restaura t definitions and classifications be � replaced. New definitions for "restaurants", "carr -out" restaurants and "fast-food" restaurants are developed and a matrix of approp iate zoning district locations is included. The definition for "fast-food" restaurants is broa ened to include the former separately � defined "drive-in". In addition, characteristics w ich were identified as being primary components of a "fast-food" restaurant are includ d within the definition and restaurants which exhibit four or more of these characteristi s are now classified as "fast-food" � restaurants. "Carry-out" restaurants, not currentl defined in the Zoning Code, are retail food businesses which may have no more than 12 hairs or 75 square feet of patron area. "Carry-out" restaurants are characteristically ope ted like other retail businesses and � would be permitted in the B-1 district. "Restaura ts" would remain permitted uses beginning in the B-2 district. No restaurants of a y kind would be permitted in the B-2C district, as the code now states. A significant cha ge is recommended for "fast-food" � restaurants. "Fast-food" restaurants are recomme ded to become permitted uses in the B-2 community business district if they are part of a lanned shopping center or located within a multi-use retail center of at least 20,000 gross s are feet and if they do not have a drive-thru window. Free-standing "fast-food" res urants would remain conditional uses � beginning in the B-3 general business district but ould include some new conditions of review. � "Carry-out" restaurants would be required to meet the retail business parking standard of one space for every 150 square feet of usable floo area. "Fast-food" restaurants and "restaurants" would retain the current restaurant arking requirement of one space for � every 100 square feet of usable floor area. Zoning text amendments for the recommended ch nges are included in Part Two of this report. � � � � � � �, 3 � � ������� � III. TYPES OF RESTAURANT AND THEIR DEFINITIONS � A. EXISTING DEFlNITIONS � The Saint Paul Zoning Code now defines three categories of restaurants. Definitions found in Section 60.218 R. are: � Restaurant. A business establishment hose principal business is the selling of unpackaged food to the customer in a ready to consume state, in individual servings, on or in nondisposable cont iners, where the customer consumes these � food while seated at tables or counte located within a building. Restaurant, drive-in. A business esta lishment whose principal business is the � selling of food, frozen desserts, or b erages to the customer in a ready to consume state, in individual servings, and wh re the customer consumes these foods, frozen deserts, or beverages in an automobi e parked upon the premises. � Restaurant, fast food. A business es ablishment whose principal business is the selling of pre-prepared, quick order, and packaged food in a ready to consume state, in individual servings, for co umption on or off the premises, and where � the packaging, wrapping, or contai r in or on which the food is sold is paper, plastic, or other substance of a non- eturnable nature. ,� The city's restaurant definitions are very si ilar to those of other communities. While a few communities have but one restaurant d finition in their Zoning Code, most distinguish between two or three types of restaurants a d differentiate between high and low intensity � restaurant uses as does Saint Paul (Appendi A includes a sample of other cities' restaurant definitions). � However, close reading and strict interpret tion of St. Paul's definitions reveals that some types of restaurants do not fit well into an of the established categories. This situation causes confusion, delay and uneven enforc ment of the zoning code. For example, over the � last three years a take-out restaurant in o location was permitted but a subsequent operator of a similar restaurant was requi ed to proceed with a zoning review, even though both restaurants were in the same zoning istrict. In addition, trends in the food service � industry have added to the confusion of r staurant classifications established for zoning � purposes. � B. TRENDS IN THE RESTAURANT IND STRY The food service industry has not been st tic since the restaurant definitions were established in the city's Zoning Code. T is is the primary reason why the city's definitions � do not fit comfortably with the city's ex sting restaurant inventory. The key to a restauranYs success is to respond to the e er changing needs or desires of its customers. This means that as the customer base ma ures, its taste and lifestyle choices must be 1 reflected in the offerings of the individ al restaurant if that restaurant is to be successful. The primary response of the restaurant ndustry to this fact is market seQmentation. � 4 � � � C� �I'/�"�/� � Simply put, market segmentation allows a rest urant operator or chain to identify and target a customer base which shows an opport nity for growth. Market segmentation as a � strategy continues to get ever more sophistica d as market analysis becomes more precise and operators position their restaurants into i entifiable niches. The particular aspects of this phenomena that are highlighted below ar examples of the current strategies used by successful restaurants. These examples are str tegies that may be popular for five years or � discontinued in six months. That's what make observing the industry so interesting, and regulating it so difficult. For while the Zoni Code doesn't distinguish if a restaurant sells salads or burritos, it is intended to pay at ention to businesses opting for take-out or � drive-thru, or to the fact that traffic and par 'ng generated at a particular restaurant may expand beyond its site's capacity as a result of operational changes. The �trowth in take-out foods. from 29 percent to 41 percent between 1982 and 1985, � indicates the effects of powerful demographic trends on the restaurant industry: the increases in the number of people who live alo e, in working women and in the elderly, and, in the value people place in their spare ti e (American Demographics, March 1987). � These changes affect consumption patterns by educing the number of ineals eaten at home and by increasing the need for fast and conve ient foods. McDonald's, already the essential take-out food operation, responded i ther to this need in 1984 by introducing � their own super convenient fast food operatio McSnack, in areas where existing convenience stores had space available for mic owavable foods. In 1983 in the southeast, a drive-thru only kiosk was introduced and the ncept is slowly spreading toward the midwest. The kiosk would offer a limited men but would serve items quickly and � inexpensively to customers still seated in their ars. In a related manner, home food deliverv has g e beyond pizza. National Restaurant � Association Vice-President Jim Hassolocher tol American Demographics that take-out and delivery services "suit the growing number of c stomers who do not want to prepare meals themselves and yet regard the home as their en ertainment center" (March 1986). He estimated that 40 percent of all current restaur nt visits are for foods consumed outside � the restaurant. For a few months in late 1988, home delivery company advertised heavily the availability of their speedy delivery of full cooked dinners for the west metro area of the Twin Cities. � A elobal boom in ethnic food snecialties is also vident and the demand in urban areas for food items such as sushi, curry, bagels, tapas an croissants seems insatiable. Restaurant � operators have opened the door for their custo ers to a taste world beyond the region and the nation. This is evident not only in the emer ence of chains such as Taco Bell, Chi-Chi's and the Olive Garden, but also in the wide loca acceptance of small independent . restaurants such as Tonkin, Taste of Vietnam a d Caravan Serrai. � An unscale market has emerged because of the aturing customer base and because of an increase in dual wage earner families. The rest urant industry was quick to respond to this � group by adding brass, marble and mirrors to th ir restaurant decors and by introducing such items as the upscale hamburger with adult oppings (the bacon double cheese burger) and specialty ice creams. Locally, the city has elcomed Jolanda's Gourmet to Go, Moppo's International Cafe and Cafe Latte in t 's vein. � A growing number of people are concerned with health, nutrition and �hvsical fitness. This trend has manifested in the local restauran s as well as in the large chains as "lighter" � and more "healthful" menu options including sal d bars, fish items, multi-grained buns and yogurt. Giant corporations such as General Mill recognized this emerging market and introduced their own healthful restaurant altern tive, the Good Earth Restaurant. � 5 � f ���"/�7� � In fact, nearly all restaurants serve some pre-prep red or quick order foods, and most sell some packaged foods. The remaining differences etween these two types of restaurants, � as defined by the Zoning Code, are the nature of he containers on or in which food is served, and where the food is consumed. A "rest urant" patron eats from nondisposable containers and a "fast food" patron eats from non eturnable containers. While actual � patrons of either type of restaurant may consum their food at tables or counters in a building, only "restaurant" patrons are recognized for so doing. Buffet restaurants, delicatessens and pizza parlor often do not typically serve food in � individual servings. All of these types of restaura ts sell quick order foods and all will typically provide packaging for consumption off e premise. While these are characteristics of a "fast food" restaurant as now defined in the ity's Zoning Code, each of these types of � restaurants are typically view.ed by the city's Zo ing enforcement office as ones which meet the definition for "restaurant" and are per itted in more restrictive zoned areas. Current definitions cannot accommodate emergi trends. � If a new restaurant is planned that does not clea ly meet the city's current definitions, the Planning Commission is asked to determine wha type of restaurant is being proposed. The � operator of a small restaurant who wishes to sav the capital expenditure of permanent table service, washing equipment and so on, is d finitionally ranked along side Burger King, Arby's and Wendy's until the Planning Co mission determines otherwise. 1i This situation is caused in part, on the level of etail in the definitions which do not easily accommodate restaurant innovations or changes. Further, in spite of increasing interest by restaurant operators in drive-thru or take-out w ndows, there is no reference in the code to � this aspect of restaurant operation which means that such restaurants can be located anywhere a "restaurant" is now permitted. Inde d, if it has no seating, it is treated like any other retail business and could locate in the mo restrictive business zone, the B-1 district. � Current definitions can be subverted by minor o erational changes. The city's current definitions suggest that the t pe of tableware used by a restaurant helps � to determine that one zoning district is more ap ropriate than another. This strict adherence to operational characteristics within he definitions makes them susceptible to operator subversion. For example, the operatio of the nationally franchised chicken � restaurant cited in page one of this report is an actual case where a restaurant owner implemented operational changes to subvert th specifics of the ordinance definition. While the proposed plans met the letter of the 1 w, they clearly did not meet its spirit. And, it is unlikely that in this instance, the pr vision of limited table service would attract � either a large percentage of current customers o change their eating habits or a significant number of new, dine-in customers. � Another restaurant operator who serves food o non-returnable containers is said to have a complete set of unused nondisposable dinner re on shelves behind the counter. The zoning in the area would not permit a "fast-fo d" restaurant, hence the need to have the � nondisposable table service available. � � � � ������ � D. RESTAURANT DEFINITION ALTERNATIVES 1. No change alternative. � The current definitions are still useful in many ca es although Planning Commission interpretations, through Determinations of Simila Use zoning cases, were requested in increasing numbers over the last three to five yea s. � Impacts of this alternative: � - existing definitions usually apply to m st new restaurants - more difficult or unique restaurant pr posals will continue to need Planning Commission review - definitions now do not accurately refl ct the current inventory of , restaurants - existing definitions do not not exhibit much flexibility to accommodate restaurant trends or ope ational changes - existing definitions can be subverted y minor changes in facility � operation or design - the existing definitions make no refe nce to drive-thru windows � 2. Add new definitions. New definitions to cover those types of restaur ts which are not now defined in the � Zoning Code could be added to the existing def nitions. � Impacts of this alternative: � - would provide more direction to bot potential developers and to city enforcement staff - some overlap of restaurant types ma occur � - would not address the problems that the city has with its current definitions, i.e., inflexible, easily su verted - not automatically a response to eme ging trends or restaurant operational changes � 3. Colla se all definitious into one usable defi ition of restaurants. P � Moskowitz and Lindbloom argue in their boo The Illustrated Book of Develonment Definitions. that the "distinction between the ast-food restaurant and other types of . restaurants is rapidly becoming blurred." The r point is that the major objections to � "fast-food" operations -- noise, glare from lig ing, litter and traffic -- are all impacts that can be mitigated by stringent performance st ndards. � Impacts of this alternative: - existing restaurants would be "gra fathered" with respect to stringent performance standards � - a comprehensive definition could e easy to develop but distinctions may be difficult to implement - the city does not have a good reco d of enforcement of existing � development standards - a single definition could cause co fusion among developers and neighbors � 8 � � ��/..5�7� � 4. Re lace the existin definitions n p g a d add new o es. 1 New definitions could differentiate more clearly etween types of restaurants and their impacts. Operational characteristics which chang as the industry changes could be separated from the functional characteristics. Ne definitions could "catch" those uses � now inappropriately included with those requirin less restrictive regulations. Impacts of this alternative: � - easier to enforce uses having clear and imple descriptors - able to separate restaurant types by im acts they create - new definitions can be written to be m re flexible � Recommendation Alternative Four offers the course of action whic would most likely address the � definitional problems that were discussed above. he definitions which are recommended and examples of existing restaurants that would f 1 into each new category are discussed below. � Restaurant. A public eating place which s rves a substantial portion of its food � for consumption at tables or counters loca ed on the premises. This term shall include but not be limited to an establish ent known as a cafe, smorgasbord, diner or similar business. Any facilities for car -out shall be clearly subordinate to the principal use of providing foods for consu ption on the premises. � i.e., CofJee Cup, Key's Restaurant, Khyber P s Cafe, W.A.Frost, Mama D's � Discussion: The new definition eliminates any ref ence to types of food, i.e., unpackaged food, or to food containers, and catches some types f restaurants that are not accounted for in the current definitions. It also spells out the intent that limited carry-out is � acceptable only as an adjunct to the principal busin ss function - servin� food. The current parking standard of one space for every 10 square feet of usable floor area would be retained; restaurants which also have liquor lice ses would still be reyuired to meet the more strict licensed parking standards. � Restaurant, carry-out. A retail food servic business which sells ready to eat �, foods, usually in bulk quantities, primarily or consumption off the premises. A carry-out restaurant that has more than lim ted seating (12 or fewer seats) or more than 75 square feet of patron area, shall be eemed to be "restaurant" for zoning purposes. � i.e., Dominos Pizza, Baskin-Robbins, Pizza Fa tory � Discussion: This definition is an attempt to recogni e a type of restaurant that the city now regulates as a retail business only. The new def nition would add some flexibility to allow those businesses that may focus on carry-out t also have three or four small tables for their patrons. The neighborhood bakery or speci lty deli that operates in the local � business district (which does not now permit restaur nts) and has tables and chairs for a few customers would be clearly permitted to do so u der this definition. The current � 9 � � ��,,s�� � parking standard of one space for every 150 uare feet of usable floor area for retail uses would be retained. This standard would be a propriate because "carry-out" restaurants would still primarily Function as retail establ shments. , Restaurant, fast-food. A public eatin place designed for rapid food delivery to customers seated in their automobile or from a counter or drive-thru window, with minimal personal service and f consumption on or off the premises. All � restaurants with drive-thru service a e considered fast-food restaurants. Any restaurant whose design or prin ipal method of operation includes four or � more of the following characteristics shall be deemed a fast-food restaurant for zoning purposes: (1) 45 percent or m re of the floor area is devoted to food preparation, employee work space an customer service area, (2) a permanent menu � board is provided from which to sele t and order food, (3) if a chain or franchised restaurant, standardized floor plans re used over several locations, (4) customers pay for food before consuming it, (5) a self-service condiment bar is provided, (6) trash receptacles are provided for sel -service bussing, (7) furnishing plan � indicates hard finished, stationary se ting arrangements, and (8) most main course food items are prepackaged rather th n made to order. � i.e., Lee Ann Chi�i Carry Out, McDonal 's, Dairy Queen, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Au Bon Pain, Jerry's Drive-In Discussion: This type of restaurant is the mo problematic for nearly every city; � "fast-food" restaurants have extended hours o operation, they are often the scene of loitering and neighborhood disruption, they a e usually designed with little sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood and they can c use problems from bright lights, open trash � dumpsters and speaker box noise. Yet most o those problems just listed can also be ameliorated by properly locating and bufferi g the facility. � The proposed definition collapses together tw existing types of restaurants. °Drive-ins" are now included within this category becaus the impacts they create are similar to those of a "fast food" restaurant and because their 1 nd requirements are such that it is unlikely that new "drive-ins" will be developed. The Z ning Code now regulates both "drive-in" and � "fast food" restaurants very similarly althoug each type is separately defined. The operational characteristics are similar am ng the restaurants listed as examples, that is, � food is served on disposable dinnerware, ther is usually a rapid turnover of patrons, 45 percent or more of the gross floor area of the stablishment is devoted to food preparation, work space and storage, patrons are expected generally clear their own tables, and so on. � However, the impacts of these various restaur nts are much different because of the � location and facility design. The definition d es not separate these similarly operated restaurants because that is accomplished in th locational requirements. � Parking rates would remain at their current le el of one space for every 100 square feet of usable floor area. As a rule, the major, nation lly franchised "fast-food" restaurants provide parking in excess of that reyuired by he code because if their parking lot is full, � likely customers can easily find another "fast- ood" restaurant in the area. i � 1 � � ��-/.5�� � Summary � The real problems associated with a "proble restaurant" have less to do with the type of tableware used than with the impacts that b siness may create, including noise, litter, � disruptive patron behavior and so on. The ost successful way to address those concerns is to first establish good descriptions of the ses, then establish the appropriate locations or zoning districts and suitable conditions as r quired. � The descriptions found in the new definitio s are ones which are easy to understand and clearly distinguish between types of restaur nts. The proposed definitions eliminate dinnerware characteristics (nondisposable co tainers) and references to types of food (jrozen � desserts in a ready-to-consume state). The ne definitions indicate that a "restaurant" does not equal a "carry-out" restaurant although t may provide some carry-out food. The definition of "fast-food" restaurant is ritten to allow easy identification of those � characteristics or attributes found in a typi al "fast-food" restaurant. These characteristics were noted in established "fast-food" restau ants during the preparation of this study. Some of these characteristics strongly relat to the the functional aspects of the restaurant � and some relate to physical design. The rev ew of these characteristics against the submitted development plans would provid a clear picture of the type of restaurant being proposed. � Since it is evident that successful restauran operators must respond to trends in the industry and adapt or change operations as equired, the characteristics now listed as those of a "fast-food" restaurant may change over time in the restaurant industry. To respond to � this change, the Zoning or Planning Admin strator may request that the Planning Commission re-evaluate these characteristic and recommend to the City Council zoning text changes as appropriate. � E. IMPACT ON OTHER ORDINANCES � Licensing and Health Departmeuts. The reclassification of restaurant types pro osed with new zoning definitions will not � affect the current operation of either the alth Department or License Department. Therefore no changes are required to those ections of the Legislative Code. � All food establishments located in the city re required to have a city license and a Health � Department review. Chapter 331 of the cit 's Legislative Code lists five types of Class C restaurant licenses that are available; these icenses differ in the number of seats and hours that a licensed restaurant may operate. Th five types of restaurant licenses are: ,�, 1. 25 or fewer seats and open for usiness fewer than 9 hours a day. 2. 99 or fewer seats and open for usiness fewer than 14 hours a day. � 3. 99 or fewer seats and open for usiness more than 14 hours a day. 4. 100 or more seats and open for usiness fewer than 14 hours a day. 5. 100 or more seats and open for usiness more than 14 hours a day. � Licenses are available for other types of fo d establishments including Class A Grocery licenses, Class B Bakery and so on, a total 0 15 types of licenses. � 11 � � ���i i,�'� IIV. LOCATING RES URANTS APPROPRIATELY � A. EXISTING LOCATIONAL RE UIREM NTS Q � There are seven business or commercial z nes and three industrial zones in the Saint Paul Zoning Code (B-1, B-2, B-2C, B-3, B-4, B-5 RCC-1 and I-1, I-2, RCI-1) which now allow some type of restaurant. "Restaurants", o "eating and drinking establishments", are � permitted in the five most intensive busi ss zones and in each industrial zone. Restaurants that function as carry-out on y with no patron seating are now considered retail uses, not restaurants, and are permi ted in the least intensive business zone, B-1. In � the B-2C zoning district, the community siness converted district, restaurants are expressly prohibited. "Fast-food" and "drive-in" restaurants are ermitted uses subject to special conditions in the � B-3 and I-1 zones; "fast-food" is also perm tted subject to special conditions in the RCC-1 zone. The special conditions by which th se types of restaurants are reviewed include site design issues -- points of ingress and egre s and alley relationships -- as well as standards � which attempt to regulate the impact on djoining property. Both "drive-in" and "fast-food" restaurants are permitted uses in the downtown B-4 and B-5 districts and in the I-2 district. � Zoning Districts Where R staurants Can Now Locate � Existing Commercial nes Industrial Zones Definitions B-1 B-2 B-2C B- B-4 B-5 RCC-1 I-1 I-2 RCI-1 � • * Restaurant Retail � � Drive-in Restaurant S P SCUP � Fast Food S P SCUP SCUP � Restaurant � Restaurant is permitted � Restaurant is not permitted *A food carry-out business which has no seats is now nsidered a retail business and not a restaurant and can � therefore locate in a B-1 zoning district. SCiJRPermitted after review by the Planning Commiss on and issuance of Special Condition Uses Permit. � 13 � � ��1�7� , B. PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING LOCATIO REQUIREMENTS � Existing strip zoning in the ctty often puts 1 w density residential uses adjacent to commercial and business zones whlch permi any type of restaurant use. � The pattern that zoning takes in the city of en means that traditional commercial strips are backed by low density residential areas. T se areas may or may not be separated from the commercial zones by an alley or street. Tod y, a business establishment with a drive-thru � window, such as a kiosk which sells hambu ers but has no seating, would be considered to be a "retail use" permitted to locate in the B 1 local business zone under the current zoning classification system. � "Fast-food" restaurants which require B-3 o more intense commercial zoning, are also found abutting residential districts. Even ith the review of special conditions and site characteristics for "fast-food" restaurants, t is land use relationship produces neighborhood � antipathy whenever a new "fast-food" resta rant zoning application is reviewed. Current locational requirements prohibit's s me types of restaurants in areas which are suitable for their operation. � Through its conditions of review, the city r cognizes that a "fast-food" restaurant ma Y generate negative impacts on adjoining xesi ential properties. However, a "fast-food" � restaurant located within a larger retail de lopment or planned shopping center does not appear to have the same negative impacts. he reason for this is twofold: patrons to most retail center restaurants are those who are mpleting other shopping and therefore are not � significantly increasing traffic to the adjac nt streets and second, the standard exterior franchise design is mitigated by the shoppi g center design. In addition, there are no out-of-scale signs, access is incorporated int the existing center's traffic control system, trash receptacles are usually located out of ight or in a remote area, there is no � opportunity for drive-thru service and so o . At the present time, planned shopping cent s (now defined in Section 60.219 S. as having � five or more acres and single ownership) an retail centers are permitted in the B-2 community business district; new planned s opping centers require Planning Commission review and approval as a conditional use. � The current buffering requirements are oft inadequate and are often insufficiently enforced over time to retain any positive im act they may have had initially. � The Zoning Code now requires a minimum f ten feet for side yard setbacks and visual screening of commercial parking areas whi abut or adjoin residential uses. Landscaping is also required at a rate of ten percent of t e impervious lot surface and it is intended to � act as a buffer between parking facilities, jacent properties and the public right-of-way. The difference between what buffering the code suggests and what developers of new � restaurants volunteer is often remarkable. n one instance a "fast-food" restaurant operator was expanding his parking and intended to emove mature pine and spruce trees and install a w o o d e n f e n c e, s i x f o o t t a l l. I n f a c t, i n m s t i n s t a n c e s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r s c r e e n i n g i s usually interpreted as a six foot tall opaque wooden fence or a chain link fence with � decorative slats added. Both types of fence have a limited screening life, especially when the developer plans to deposit snow into th planted and fenced areas of the site. � 14 � � ������ � Throughout the city, residents can identif areas of commercial lots that once had some plantings but are now the home of decorat ve but barren rock mulch, the organic specimens long since having died. � C. RESTAURANT LOCATION ALTERNAT VES Using the three new definitions as describ d on page nine, a table for locating these � restaurants would look as follows: Proposed Zoning Distric Where Restaurants Could Locate � New Commercial nes Industrial Zones � Definitions B-1 B-2 B2-C B- B-4 B-5 RCC-1 I-1 I-2 RCI-1 � Restaurant � � � Carry-out Restaurant � � � Fast Food * S p * SCUP SCUP Restaurant � � � Restaurant is permitted Restaurant is not permitted � SCUP-Permitted after review by the Planning Commis on and issuance of Special Condition Uses Permit. � *Fast food restautants that are not free-standing are pe itted uses within a planned shopping center or retail center at least 20,000 square feet in size. � In the B-1 zoning district, "carry-out" res aurants would be permitted by right. "Carry-out" restaurants can have no more than 12 se s and still locate in this district. No other restaurant use would be allowed. This is similar to what the city's Zoning Administrator � now allows, with two distinctions: (1) th city does not now classify "carry-out" restaurants as restaurants and, (2) no seating is now llowed for those retail food businesses located in the B-1 district. � The B-2C zoning district would continue to prohibit all types of restaurants. In the B-2 zoning district, "restaurants" nd "carry-out" restaurants are permitted uses. In � addition, a "fast-food" restaurant which s incorporated into a planned shopping center or within a multi-use retail center at least ,000 square feet in size would also be permitted. A new definition for "multi-use retail ce ter" is included in the proposed text amendments. � Commercial areas that have developed h storically as a mixture of separate and distinct businesses, such as the shopping areas at Grand Avenue and Macalester Street, would not meet the definition of a "multi-use retai center". � 15 � � ������ � Some of the retail centers that would have suff cient room include the Ford Mall located on Ford Parkway and Finn (23,624 square feet) Sibley Plaza located at West Seventh and � Davern (95,100 square feet), Suburban Plaza lo ted at I-94 and White Bear Avenue (32,790 square feet), and Milton Mall located on Grand venue and Milton Street (20,424 square feet). � Centers that would be too small to be considere a multi-use retail center include the proposed Rice Street Center located at Rice and Front Streets (14,600 square feet), Oxford Square located on Grand Avenue and Oxford (9 200 square feet), and the proposed � Thompson Plaza located at Rice and Wheelock arkway (14,800 square feet). This element is added in recognition that "fast- ood" restaurants which are not � free-standing but are included in the retail ope tion of a large planned shopping center or a multi-use retail center operate in a manner si ilar to the other retail businesses of the center. "Fast food" restaurants located in the B zone must exhibit the following characteristics: � - They are not free-standing but operat within an interior of a planned shopping center as defined in Section 60.219 S. of the � _ Zoning Code; or they must be located in a unified, mu i-use retail center, located on one zoning lot, and whose size is at least 20,000 gross square � feet; - parking is provided at the rate of one space for every 100 square � feet of usable floor area; and - there is no drive-thru window service. � An example of this type of arrangement is curr ntly exhibited in the Midway Shopping Center where both McDonald's and Taco Bell ar located and, in the recently established Lee Ann Chin Carry-Out (a "fast-food" restaura t by the proposed definitions) which is � located in the Highland Village Shopping Cente . In each of these instances, either the Planning Commission or the Board of Zoning A peals heard zoning cases in which they ultimately found that the proposed restaurants ere not "fast-food" restaurants, although � each would normally appear so by reason of its peration and the existing "fast-food" definition in the code. . In the B-3 zoning district, "restaurants" ,"carry-o t" and "fast-food" restaurants which are � incorporated into a planned shopping center or rger retail center are permitted uses. Free-standing "fast-food" restaurants are permit ed subject to special conditions. The existing conditions by which "fast-food" restaur nts are reviewed found in Section 60.544 � (4) of the Zoning Code are as follows: Restaurants, fast-food and drive-in, su 'ect to the following conditions: � a. Points of vehicular ingress and egr s shall not be onto a street which is used primarily for access to abutting res dential property. � b. Points of vehicular ingress and egr s shall be located at least sixty (60) feet from the intersection of any two (2 streets and at least sixty (60) feet from any abutting residentially zoned pr perty. � 16 � � �G��,��� t � c. When the site abuts an alley w ich also serves residentially zoned land, no access from the site to the alle shall be permitted. d. Impact on adjoining property use of the site may not result in the � following: 1. Loud, boisterous and dis urbing noise levels. � 2. Hazardous traffic condit ons. 3. Offensive, obnoxious an disturbing odors. 4. Excessive litter. � 5. Excessive artificial lighti g. 6. Substantial decrease in a joining property values. 7. Any other condition inco sistent with the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining p perty and inconsistent with the � health, safety, morals and general welfare of the adjoining community. � Although the actual language for text amend ents follows as Part Two of this paper, recommended changes to this section of the c de include: - an additional condition that " the 'dth of the site be at least � 100 jeet" to ensure that adequate m neuvering into and through the site is provided; � - that "trash receptacles be housed in a three-sided masonry enclosure six Jeet or equal in height t the dumpster and that the entrance or gate be constructed oj a o aque and durable material" in order to eliminate those circumst nces of inessy trash areas on � a site; - a "litter collection plan that obligates e restaurant operator to � keep the area surrounding said restau nt free of restaurant litter for a specified distance" in an effort o eliminate a long standing neighborhood complaint about fast f od restaurant operations and an � ambiguous condition now in the cod The Planning Commission would specify the collection area based on ctual site characteristics; - that "speaker box sounds from drive-t u lanes will not be heard � Jrom abutting residential property'; an - that sites for "fast-food" restaurants ill "provide a landscaped � area not less than 15 percent of the imp rvious surjace area of the lot" because these sites need additiona buffering to help compensate for the larger traffic volu es generated there. � In the B-4 and B-5 zoning districts, the downtow districts, all types of restaurants would be permitted as they are now by the Zoning Cod . � � 17 � � ����s�� , In the RCC-1 zoning district, the river cor 'dor commercial district, "restaurants" and "carry-out" restaurants would be classified ermitted uses; "fast-food" restaurants that are included in a planned shopping center or a multi-use retail center of sufficient size would also be permitted. Now this zone permits nly "restaurants" (as currently defined). � The industrial zones, I-1, I-2, RCI-1, woul retain similar regulation of all types of restaurants as is now found in the Zoning ode. � D. SIDEWALK CAFES Outdoor cafes provide an urban amenity t at many people enjoy during the warmer � months. Outdoor seating on a patio or dec , or in an adjacent garden increases the types of dining opportunities available but does no trigger an additional parking requirement for the restaurant, unless the restaurant also s a liquor license. Parking is only required for � "buildings" and the office of the Zoning dministrator has interpreted that phrasing literally. � Outdoor seating on a sidewalk, the public ight-of-way, is not permitted however. Chapter 106 of the city's legislative code discusses he use of sidewalks and prohibits their obstruction, chairs and tables would be co sidered a sidewalk obstruction. In general, sidewalk furniture is prohibited because i is considered a safety hazard. A blind person, a � person with an umbrella or with a hat pu ed low all could incur injury by tripping or falling over an unexpected object such as chair or table. To reduce this liability, street furniture is banned. If a restaurant oper tor wants to use the sidewalk in front of the � restaurant for seating, a city council reso tion is required for an exception to the code. In most cases, restaurants that now have utdoor seating are not operating with the permission of the city. The city's Public orks Department is responsible for enforcing the � part of the Legislative Code dealing with obstructions. In reality there is no uniform enforcement because enforcement occurs n a complaint basis. According to Public Works staff, there are numerous complaints abo t sidewalk obstructions, some of them not related � to restaurants but to other businesses hav ng signs, benches or items for sale. If no one complains about a particular establishme t however, sidewalk tables and chairs, or whatever, may continue to be found on t e sidewalk at that location. � Other cities have approached this issue i a variety of ways. Tampa, Florida, allows no outdoor seating in the right-of-way but i vigorously enforces that ordinance. Both Dayton and Cincinnati discourage seating in the ight-of•way but will allow it after a review by � the Public Works Department and their i suance of a permit; other restrictions that may be appropriate are added after review on a ase-by-case basis. Omaha allows outdoor seating . after review and approval by the City C uncil; a bond is also required. � In Minneapolis outdoor seating is permit ed in one of two ways: either through an encroachment permit if the seating is pe manent or through a sidewalk cafe permit if the seating is removed from the sidewalk at he end of the business day. The traffic engineer � determines how far the seating can exte d into the right-of-way and a public hearing is held prior to granting the permit. Appli ation is made through the licensing department and a fee is required. Evidence of insur nce, in amounts determined by the city, must also � be presented. If Saint Paul should determine that side alk cafes are uses that should be encouraged in � the city, revisions to the licensing chapt r of the Legislative Code would be appropriate. These revisions are not suggested in this study. � 18 � , �'�y-�5?�O � V. ADMINISTRATIO AND ENFORCEMENT � A. EXISTING METHODS � Currently, applications for permits to devel p a restaurant in the city may enter the review system through several different offices. S me restaurant operators may apply for their business license and be informed that their lans must be reviewed by the Health � Department and the Building Department. thers may go directly to the Building Department and still others may start in th Zoning Section of P.E.D. At whichever channel the review begins, at some point a ecision is made as to what type of facility is � being proposed, that is, it is a retail store, a "restaurant", a "fast-food" restaurant or a "drive-in". Usually in the past, applications were clear and it was simple enough to direct the project � proposer to the appropriate next required s eps. As stated early in this report, it has only been in the last five years or so that new tr nds in restaurant marketing have brought new and interesting restaurant proposals to the ore. And consequently, more difficult � determinations as to what was being propo ed and where it should be appropriately located became more common. The Zoning Administrator has the authori to determine what type of facility an i applicant is proposing. Other than the dist' ctions provided by the restaurant definitions, � the city's Zoning Code does not offer muc direction to help facilitate a decision for a new or unfamiliar restaurant concept. The Zo ing Administrator may also chose to have the � proposer submit an application for a "Dete mination of Similar Use" in which the Planning Commission is asked to determine that the restaurant in question is similar to some other use in the same zoning district. The Com ission reviews traffic, site design, operational � characteristics and so on, in an effort to r ach its determination. In either case, the decision may be appealed. With the current set of definitions, a proj ct proposer may "design around" the definitions , to achieve the most advantageous treatme t under the Zoning Code. This has resulted in considerable consternation among neighb s in areas that were considered "safe" from uses such as "fast-food" restaurants, only to ha e one sitting in their side yard three months � after a zoning review. In fact, it is usual the distinction between "fast-food" and "restaurant" and between "restaurant" and "retail" (i.e„ carry-out) that are the most confused. � B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANCE IN ADMINlSTRATIVE PROCEDURES � Plans for new restaurants should still be ble to come through the review system as they do now, whether it be through the Zoning A ministrator's office or through the Zoning Section of PED. However, the following et of administrative guidelines should help to facilitate decisions and coordination bet een the two departments. � 1. The Zoning Administrator shoul continue to closely monitor permits that are � granted with conditions to ensur that the intention of the condition is complied with by the developer. � 19 � � ������ � Enforcement of conditions of permits for re taurants such as "fast-food" restaurants has not been consistent over time. In the past, p rt of that problem was the result of a very , small staff complement in the office of the oning Administrator that was responsible for reviewing and monitoring all building perm ts in the city. Within the last year, new staff were added to that area and a systematic re iew was started for all permits granted with added conditions. , � 2. The Zoniag Administrator and Plan ing Administrator should require submittal of a site plan and floor plan for all ne restaurants which require zoning review. A furnishing plan may also be require . � Developers must submit a variety of plans i order to receive their building permits. Three of these plans are usually very helpful in di tinguishing between different types of restaurants: (1) the ground floor plan of the tructure, (2) the furnishing plan, and (3) the site plan. The plans are used against the lis of restaurant characteristics as delineated in �. the "fast-food" definition and those charact ristics of "carry-out" restaurants.. � 3. The Zoning Administrator with the Planning Administrator should annually evaluate the continued effectivenes of the "fast-food" restaurant characteristics � found in the "fast-food" definition. If it appears that restaurant characteristics are changing, the Planning Commis ion would be asked to study the issue and forward text amendments to the Ci Council as appropriate. � The office of the Zoning Administrator has the authority to interpret the Zoning Code. This office issues building permits and revi ws building plans. Working with the Planning � Administrator whose office has the authorit to review site plans, both the Zoning and Planning Administrators would have the op ortunity to evaluate whether restaurant characteristics were changing by the plans t at come before them. In this way the definitions for restaurants, in particular "fa t-food" restaurants, would be monitored and � changes could be made as required. Any decision made by the Zoning Administ ator about what type of restaurant an � applicant proposes could still be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Alternatively, the Zoning Administrator could also still re uire Planning Commission review for an unusual proposal through the existing Deter ination of Similar Use zoning case process . specified in Section 64.300 (e) of the Zoning Code. i � � � � 20 � � ������ � PART TWO 1 TEXT AM NDMENTS � This part of the report includes the actual zo ing text changes discussed in Part One of this study. New language that is added is in icated by underlininQ and language which is deleted is indicated by the-oYe�s�ri�e charac r. � �. Below the new deJinitions are added and the e isting definitions are deleted. � 1 60.218R � � �e�ctears�e�t:--�1-��rx�ss-e�stsb�isk�e�r�-w�ies� -}aai�e�-�si�resgig��o-�e��itrg-o�-x��ae�ksg�d €oec�-�o-�ka��s�e�e�i�-a;�ad�-�e�e�ns�r�e to-;i�r-t�rdi��a��e��}�rgs;-o��x �di�s�osa��o-c+s�r�a�e�s;���keFo-���c� �aF eotrsx�res t�ese €oeds w�rtle-sea�ed-a�t �a�e�o�-oeux�efs-�cea-Ee�v�i�#rtx-e-���d��xg. l � Restaurant. A bli eatin lace which se ves a ubstantial ortion of it food f r � � c n m ti n t tables or unter 1 cated o h r mi e . This term sh 11 include t not limit d t an establishm nt known as f m r a or din r or similar busine . An facili ies for carr -out shall b cl rl s rdinate to the rinci al use of rovidin foods for consumntion on the nremises. : � �Fes�att�ra�-s�r�iv�;a--�A k3rsiFress-�a��i�s}rx� �-�+�ose-p�r�etpe}_b�si�esg��k��e����rg-o€ � €oed;-€�ro��x-c�e�sseftgoF-ba�e�$g�s-t���� �rraF-��r-a-r�ad�to-oorrgtx�e-s���e;-ra 3�3�t�s�-se�-vi�rg�;�x�-�v�he�rc-�k�e-e�s�o-� --0o�s��xes-�keso--f��,-��e�e�r�csse��s�r be�e��g�-ta-���tr�e�obt�e-pa��ed-�rpo�r ��iex��sss. ' Restaur nt carr -out. A r il f servi e usine s whi h s lls r a -t -eat foods usuall in ik nti ies rimaril f r c n um 'on ff he r mi e . A carr -out res ur nt th t , has m r h n limited seatin 12 r f we s ats r 7 s u re feet of atron area shall be d emed be resta ran f r zonin ur ses. , �e�aecrs�-;c�s�-�oe�--��irs}�ress-�s�a�b�ts e��-�v�hoso-p�ixoipe�-b�s�i�e�is-�kc-�e��3�rg-a€ t�`e—Pfa�e�ec�;���e#-o�id�r;-a�r�-pse�ged- ood�s-i�s-�eady—to-ea�s�x�ra-si�e;-r�i��rvid�ra� se�v�gg;�$r-os�s�r���ie�-o�-oF-s�f-€-�#re-p e�riseg-e��-w#re�-c-�ke-pee�ag�-�v��p�i�go� , �otr�ei�re��-o-f-e�-v��rie�r-�ka-€oed-ts-so�d- s-pa�pet;-��asrtio-er-o�#re�-s�b�s�a�oo�f--a �re�rre�x�-a��l���r�-d3s�+eseb�e-�a��rr� � Restaurant fast-food. A ublic eatin 1 ce desi ned for ra id food deliv r to customers in heir ut m bile r from nt r r riv -thr window with minimal er onal , servic and for consum tion on or off th remises. All restaurants with drive-thru service are considered fast-food restaurants. � 21 , , , ��i��� , b. Points of vehicular ingress and egress hall be located at least 60 feet from the intersection of any two streets and at least 60 feet from any abutting residentially zoned property. , c. When the site abuts an alley which als serves residentially zoned land, no access from the site to the alley shall be permitte . � �, i h 11 h ve a minim m f 100 e f street front on its rinci al access ree � g�, Tr sh rece cles shall b h sed 'n a three- ide m s nr encl re six f et hi h r e 1 in hei h t the dum st r w i h v r i r t r n h v n ntran te n tr f ra 1 o m ri � f A lit r c 11 ion lan sh 11 d v 1 n mi th Pl nnin mmi si n whi h li at t r r t rat r to k h re rr undin sai r st r n fre f res r nt li ter fo a n le ified di ance � g,, ak r x o n from driv -thr n h 11 n audi 1 fr m ttin residential nronertv. , h A 1 n r n 1 h n 1 r n of h im ervi rf ce area of the lot shall be nrovided and maintained. � d.i Impact on adjoining property by us of the site may not result in the following: 1. Loud, boisterous, and disturbin noise levels. i2. Hazardous traffic conditions. � 3. Offensive, obnoxious, and dist rbing odors. 4. 33xoeesi�+o-�t�o�. � 3:4. Excessive artificial lighting. 6� Substantial decrease in ad joini g property values. � a: A�ry-4�#re�-ae�io�r-raoe�s�st a�t�i-�k-t��;�a�o�rab�e-�rs��ad-e�jo-y��r��£ &(�jEYtAi�g-�fOp@F�j�rAi3E�i�AE}93t9t8� -�-�i-��}i6-�t�4lQ�E�,-s�€at�r;-aiora-l�,-s�d-getrer�l � �+e�€�re-o€-�13e-ad jo-ixi��os�r��r ' �+. RCI-1 River Corridor Industrial District , 60.773. Principal Uses Permitted Subject t Special Conditions. � (6) Restaurants, fast food a���-r-tv�-�, s bject to the following conditions: a. Points of vehicular ingress and e ress shall not be onto a street which is used primarily for access to abutting r sidential property. � � 23 � -r�� � 1 ' �G� , . . abutting residentiallY ess sh il be located at any t 60 f eet f rom t vehicular ingress and egT t 60 feet from . b, points of tWO streets and at le intersection of any zoned land, no access zoned proPerty• which also erves residential y ' ted. � � � When �he Site to the alley shall be perm rinci al access f rom f tree f ron a e on i s minimum f l00 f eet , � i hall h � feet hi h tre t• enclosur n ntrance ate hr e-sided ma onr h u sed in a r e ater and ha° t cles h 1 1 b e �, ic h v e r i � Tra h rece ster � t dof aduo bed°m uem t r, 1 oT e ual in n tt itted to the Plannin ed and subm kee the rea surroundin lan shall be d vel r t T t istance. i � olle tion the r t rant ° t a onabl s ecif ied f p litter li ate lit er for mm� i n which f resta tan f r m b tin id r aurant f r i 1 - hr 1 n h lln � , X n fr m riv r a k r rf f he S'' id ntial T r f h lm rvi r n � n 1 n n 1 r Zi,. 1 ° r vide nd main ain the fo11o�"�ing' 1 t h 11 b not result in ' �.i ImPact on ad� oining property by ° e of the site maY 1, Loud, boisterous, and disturb' g noise levels. ! 2_ Hazardous traf f ic conditions urbing odors. 3, Of f ensive, obnoxious, and d t � 4; �x�e����F. htin s�,q. Excessive artificial 1ig roperty �a�ues. � ln adj ininS p a .��r�-e�f I 6.5. Substantial decrease �a��_�g�.��-e�j y �-ea�& Fe�;&Rd �-�a��Y°�-racen 3s��+i�xx����t�e- ���r,se€e�Y;-�o � a_ �.��-ot�#te rt{ .�►��-i� �s �������. ediar��'-��opa �' i�trti$- ��F�l�����r�-0€��e��ed� � " restaurants; or "restaurants" and "fast-jood retain the same the Zoning Administratohe phrase � retail uses by deleting Parking standards will remain the Sam ua e is clari f ied bY N -out" restaurants, now considere The lanS g rr r retail uses. .. A r¢ference is adndu d meetladm�re s t a ca Y othe "restaurants . parking standards as and inserti �i uor license ,' "establishment for sale .••° nonintoxicating 4 restaurants which hatandard icating a restrictive parking i 24 , � � ��-���� � APP NDIX A , A SAMPLE OF OTHER CITIES' RESTAU NT DEFINITIONS ' Bloomington, MInnesota , Drive-in Restaurant - Any establishment w ere food, frozen dessert or beverage is sold to the consumer and where motor veh le parking space is provided and where such food, frozen dessert, or beverage is 'ntended to be consumed in the motor vehicle � parked upon the premises or anyw re on the premises outside of the building; Restaurant - Any restaurant (except a drive in restaurant or a take-out restaurant as defined in this chapter), coffee sho , cafeteria, short-order care, luncheonette, � tavern, sandwich stand, drugstore, nd soda fountain serving food, and all other eating or drinking establishments; nd ' Take-out Restaurant - Any establishment w ich has as its principal business the preparation of food, frozen dessert or beverage for sale to be consumed away from the premises of the establish nt. This does not apply to restaurants which occasionally sell such items for con umption away from the premises and does not � apply to drugstores or grocery store . � Dallas, Texas ' Drive-in Restaurant Definition: an establishment offering food ervices to customers in automobiles for consumption on the premises. , Required off-street parking: one space for ach SO square feet of floor area; a minimum of 12 spaces is reyuired. � R�staurant without Drive-in Service Definition: an establishment for the sale a service of food to customers on the premises, ' but not in automobiles. Required off-street parking: one space for ach 100 square feet of floor area. � Rest r n with A1 holic B v r e n Ent r imm � ' Definition: an establishment for the sale a service of food to customers. Required off street parking: one space for ach 100 square feet of floor area. � i26 , ' ���1�/✓���° ' Eagan and Plymouth, Minnesota The ordinance definitions for these communities re identical. Restaurant use is divided into two classes: ' Class I Traditional Restaurant ' Restaurant - An eating facility where food is serv d to a customer and consumed by him while seated at a counter or table. , Cafeteria - An eating establishment where food is selected by a customer while going through a serving line and taken to a tab for consumption. Class II Restaurant � Fast-food Restaurant - A majority of the custome s order and are served their food at a counter and then take their food to a tab e or counter where it is consumed. � However, a significant number may take heir food outside to eat in an automobile or off the premises. Drive-in Restaurant - Most customers consume th ir food in an automobile regardless of � how it is served. Carrv-out and Deliverv Restaurants - Places wher food is prepared for consumption off ' the premises only. Evanston, Illinois ' Restaurant. Tvne (1) - An establishment in which the principal use is the service of prepared food and/or beverages for cons mption on the premises. All service of , prepared food and/or beverages for cons mption on the premises shall require customers to order at a table, booth or di ing counter with service by a waiter or waitress at said table, booth or dining co nter and shall also require the use of , reusable (non-disposable) flatware and d' hware. Drive-in facilities are prohibited. Restaurant. Tvne l2) - An establishment in which the principal use is the service of � prepared food and/or beverages for cons mption on and/or off the premises and which is not a "Restaurant, Type (1)" as efined herein. This definition shall not include establishments where incidental repared food and/or beverage service is ' accessory to a bakery, grocery store, cate ing establishment, convenience grocery store, food store, meat market or other si ilar principal use nor shall it include cafeterias that are accessory to hospitals, schools or other similar principal uses. � Fairfax County, Virginia ' Eatin� Establishment - Any establishment, which rovides as a principal use, the sale of food, frozen desserts, or beverages in a s te ready for consumption within the , establishment, and whose design or princ pal method of operation includes both of the following characteristics: ' 27 , ' C✓�c �j_/�.5���/ � 1. Customers are provided with an indiv dual menu and are served their food, frozen ' desserts, or beverages by a r staurant employee at the same table or counter at which said items are consu d. 2. The food, frozen desserts, or beverage are served on nondisposable plates or containers � and nondisposable eating ut sils are provided. Customers are not expected to clear their table or dispose o their trash. ' Notwithstanding the above, a cafeteria w ere food, frozen desserts, or beverages are: (a) generally consumed within the establishm nt; and (b) served on nondisposable plates or containers, and nondisposable eating uten ils are provided shall be deemed an eating establishment. ' An eating establishment may provide a ca ry-out service, provided that such carry-out service is clearly not the principal busines of such establishment. For the purpose of this � Ordinance, a fast food restaurant shall no be deemed an eating establishment. In addition, an eating establishment shall not be deeme to include a snack bar or refreshment stand at a public or non-profit recreational facility which is operated solely by the agency or group � operating the recreational facility for the onvenience of the patrons of the facility. Fast Food Restaurant - Any establishment, hich provides as a principal use, the sale of food, frozen desserts, or beverages in a rea y-to-consume state for consumption either , within the restaurant, within a motor vehic e parked on the premises, or off-premises, and whose design or principal method of operat on includes one or more of the following characteristics: � 1. Food, frozen desserts, or beverages are se ved in edible containers or in paper, plastic or other disposable containers. Eating utens ls, if provided, are disposable. ' 2. Food, frozen desserts, or beverages are us ally served over a general service counter for the customer to carry to a seating facility within the restaurant, to a motor vehicle or off-premises. If consumed on premises, c stomers generally are expected to clear their , own tables and dispose of their trash. 3. Forty-five (45) percent or more of the gro s floor area of the establishment is devoted to , food preparation, storage and related acti ities which space is not accessible to the general public. 4. Food, frozen desserts, or beverages are ser ed to the occupants of a motor vehicle while , seated therein, such as through a drive-in indow. For the purpose of this Ordinance, a fast foo restaurant shall not be deemed an eating , establishment. Minneapolis, Minnesota , Restaurant - An eating establishment which se ves a substantial portion of its food for consumption at tables or counters located on t premises. , Drive-in Restaurant - An eating establishment hich accommodates patrons who consume the meal while seated in their cars in the establ'shment parking lot. � 28 ' ��'�1-/.S?� 1 ' Convenience Food Restaurant - An establi hment which serves a substantial portion of its , food in carry-out containers, but not incl ing a delicatessen. For purposes of determining whether an eating establishment is a conv nience food restaurant, if twenty (20) percent of its annual food dollar volume is food serv d in carry out containers, there shall be a rebuttable presumption, that such establis ment is a convenience food restaurant. ' Delicatessen - An establishment which sell prepared or cooked meats, smoked fish, cheeses, salads, relishes, etc. primarily in bulk for as distinguished from individual servings. � ' , ' � ' � , , � � ' ' � 29 ' � ���_���� , APPENDI B � LIST OF SOURCES "New Eating," American Demographics 8 (March 1 86): 12-14. ' "Taking to Take-Out," American Demographics 9 arch 1987): 13-14. , William Dunn, "The Meat and Potatoes of Eating Out," American Demographics 7 (January 1985): 34-39. ' Jacque Kochak, "Hamburger," Restaurant Busine , January 1989, p.127. Ted Levitt, "The Pluralization of Consumption, Harvard Business Review 3 (May - June 1988): 7-8. � Harvey S. Moskowitz and Carl G. Lindbloom, T e Illustr ted Book f Develo ment Definitions(Piscataway, N.J.:Center for Urban olicy, Rutgers University,1981), p.85. , U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the ensus, U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980. In the 1980 census, Saint Paul had 6,726 em loyees of retail eating and drinking ' establishments; that is 33.6 percent of all re ail employees in the city and 4.5 percent of all Saint Paul employees. ' , � , , � 1 , ' 30 ' : °�'�' � , � ��_ ���� . . lqk� . _ -_ �._ /J�vY� � �OTICE OF BLIC HEARING - Notice i hereby giv that a pu lic hearing will be held before the City Council on th da of ,1989 at 9:00 A.M.in the Saint Paul City Council 4 Chambers on the r . oor o i y , o consider proposed amendments to UY�Il� �a Chapter 60.of the Saint Paul Legisl ive Code as they relate to Zon' changes peitaining to- ' • ing Text � Councii will hear all persons relative this propos t said -time and plac�, the Dated , 1989. � = - ALBERT B OLSON,City Clerk � _ - � ' ( , 1989) ' - --: _ — .. _.__ ,. . . __ _. _ . _ ____- -�-- - :R�j�:� �4�4 iv;,s.o s�'��a r � 3 S � � ��� 3� ��-���� � . NOTIC�OF PUBLiC'HEARING Notice is hereby given tha a ublic hearing will be held.he�re the City Council t $aint Pa�l-City Council Cham rs ox► the 3 or of �ity Iiall, to consider p�qpo�d amendments to�hapters� 62 i th�Saint'Paul I�egisl�tive Code as the� relate to Zoning Text changes rta' ing to�st8urants."At said time gnd Dlace, the CounciI wi�l hear aT!per's ' tive to this praposal. - _ Dated Septemb+ei'32, I988. ns�;:. ALBEBT B. OLSON,�ty Cie ( r 30� 1989) `�"_'� ,.. . � ��_ � � � ��� City of Saint Paul City Council Investigation and Research Center Seventh Floor City Haii Saint Paul, MN 55102 612 298-4163 INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: September 21, 1989 TO: Councilmember Bill Wilson FROM: Karen Swenson SUBJECT: Restaurant de�initions zoning rdinance -- Amendment Attached please find an amendment to the estaurant definitions zoning ordinance. I recommend that you move the amendment when this item comes up on the Council agenda this morning. As you recall from last week's Housing an Economic Development Committee meeting, staff were to meet and determine whether here would be any changes needed to this ordinance in order to meet Bill Gunther's oncerns ahout implications for his food inspection program. Bill Gunther, Chuck McGuire, Jerry Segal and I met yesterday. The only change needed in the ordinance was under (g) to make th speaker noise regulation consistent with the city's noise ordinance. That change has be n made here. Any other changes can either be made administratively or would need t be made to the food licensing code, rather than to the zoning code. �C ��t,� h-�� �l=-G{�-� �'��� ,•., + � ..� Section 4. That section 60.532 of the aint Paul Legislative Code be and is hereby amended as follows: d. Restaurants er-e��er-��aee serY���-€oe�-e�-�evera�es;-e�ee�� dr��e-�n-er-€�s�-€eed-res� ra��s.-and fast-food restaurants when incor orated within a multi-use retail center or lanned sho in center and which o not rovide drive-thru window service. Sectio 5. That section 60.544 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code be and is hereby amended as follo s: (4) Restaurants, fast food aad-d��ve- n, subject to the following conditions: d. Site shall have a minimum of 100 feet of street fronta e on its principal access street. e. Trash rece tacles shall b housed in a three-sided masonr enclo�ure six feet hi h r e ual in hei ht to the dum steri whichever is reater and have an entrance ate constructed of a durable o a ue �ateria . f. A litter collection lan hall be develo ed and submitted to the Plannin Commission ich obli ates the restaurant o erator to kee the area surraun ing said restaurant free of restaurant litter for a reasonable ecified distance. � Speaker box sounds from rive-thru lane shall not be lainl audible so as to unreaso abl disturb the eace uiet and comfort of abuttin resi ential property. h. A landsca ed area not le s than 15 ercent of the im ervious surface area of the lot hall be rovided and maintained. d.-i. Impact on adjoining property by use of the site may not result in the following: 1. Loud, boisterous, and dist rbing noise levels. ,_ ; � , 2. Hazardous traffic conditi s. 3. Offensive, obnoxious, and isturbing odors. 4.- ��eess��e-����e�.- 5.-4.Excessive artificial light ng. S.-5.Substantial decrease in ad'oining property values. �.- �4n�-e��er-een����en-�neea �s�en�-H���-��e-�ease�ab�e-t�se-anel en3eymen�-e€-ad�e�ning-p per�y-afld-�aeet►s}s�e��-H}�k-��e-hea.���; sa€e��;-mera.�s;-a.nd-ger�e �-We�€a�e-e€-��e-ad°a�n�r�g-eemmteni��*.- _ � �9- �7� se�t�o s. That section 60.773 of the Saint aul Legislative Code be and is hereby amended to read as follow : (6) Restaurants, fast-food, subject to he following conditions: ci. Site shall have a minimum of 100 feet of street fronta e on its principal access street. e. Trash receqtacles shall be house in a three-sided masonr enclosure six feet hi h or e ual in hei h to the dum ster whichever is reater and have an entrance e constructed of a durable o a ue material. f. A litter collection lan shall e develo ed and submitted to the Plannin� Commission which obli tes the restaurant o erator to kee the area surroundin� said resta rant free of restaurant litter for a reasonable specified distance. �Speaker box sounds from drive-t ru lane shall not be lainl audible so as to unreasonabl disturb t e eace uiet and comfort of abuttin residentia�ropertv. h. A landsca ed area not less tha 15 ercent of the im er�ious surface area of the lot shall be rovi ed and maintained. el.-i. Impact on adjoining property b use of the site may not result in the following: 1. Loud, boisterous, and dis urbin; noise levels. 2. Hazardous traffic conditi ns. 3. Offensive, obnoxious, and disturbing odors. 4.- Exeess��e-}3��e�.- �.-4.Excessive artificial ligh ing. 6.-S.Substantial decrease in a joining property values. �.- flny-e��►e�-eend���efl-iaee s�s�efl�-w���-��ie-�easeaa��e-t�se-a,rtd . , � en�eymer��-e€-a�3e�n�r�g-� eper��-ar�d-�r�eer�s�s�es�-K��i�-�ke-hea���; sa€e�y;-me�a�s;-a.nd-gene a�-s+e�€s�e-e€-��e-ad�e3n�ng-eemmt�r����.- S tion 7. That section 62.103(g) of th Saint Paul Legislative Code be and is hereby amended as follows: (3) Business and commercial. e. Es�sk��3s�tmefl�-€er-sa.�e-e.ael-e nsam���en-en-�ke-prem�ses-e€-bevera.ges; €eed-e�-�e€resi�men�s.-