84-1709 WHIYE - CITV CLERK
PINK� - F�NANCE C I TY OF SA I NT PA U L Council (�'f �
CANIIRV - DEPARTMENT File NO. V � - ���
BLUE -MAVOR
, ` rdin�nce Ordinance N O. l ,���
.
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
An ordinance pertaining to park�ng requirements
under the Zoning Code; amending the t. Paul Legislative
Code, Section 62.103� Subdivisions 1, 3 and 4.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1.
That Section 62.103, Subdivision 1 of the St. Paul
Legislative Code be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows :
/�2.103_7 /PARKING REQUIREMENTS_7
Subdivision 1. /IIFF-STREET PARKING_7 �'l�.e�e-sk.n��-be
g�e��de�.-�A-a��-��e���e�83-exeeg�-��.-a-B-4-e�-$-�
B�e���e�;-a�-�l�e-��x�e-e€-e�ee��e�-e�►-e��a�ge�e�.�-e�
aa�-�a��-��.��d�ng3-a�.�a�e���e-e€�-e��ee�-pa���r�g
epaee9s Except in a B-4 or B-5 District, off-street
Earking�spaces sha.11 be rovided in all districts
a�"'�Fie�"ime o�erec�'ion en ar emen or e ans ion
o a ui in s in accor ance wit t e re uirements
o is sec ion. e ore a cer i ica e o occupancy
sha.l e issue , the number of off-street parking
spaces provided shall be as hereina.fter prescribed.
Section 2.
That Section 62.103, Subdivision 3 of the St. Paul
Legislative Code be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows :
Subd. 3. /ENLARGEMENT OR EXPANSION OF EXISTiNG -
COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of:
Yeas Nays
Fletcher
o�eW In Favor
Masanz
Nicosia B
scne�be� A gai ns t Y
Tedesco
Wilson
Adopted by Council: Date Form Approve y City Attor
Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY
By
Approved by Mayor: Date Approve y Mayar for ubmission to Council
By By
,
, ,
' . ' �,f'�l- /74l
r �7.91 ��
Page 2.
BUILDINGS_� 8€�-e��ee�-pa�l���.g-eha��-be-pre��ded-�e�
a��-ne�a-bt�.��d�ngs-�n-aeee�daaee-�►a��l�-�l�e-�eqt3.��e�►en�e
e�-�Y��e-see��e�: When existing buildings are enlarged
or when uses are ex anded within an existin buildin
in o an area revious exc u e rom usa e oor
area, o -street parking shall e provided for the
a�cditional usable floor egaee-e�-��.e�ea9ed-�n�eas���
e�-�.9e area in accordance with the requirements of
this section, unless the existing off-street parking,
after the enlargement or expansion, meets the require-
ments that this section would impose on new buildings ,
for all facilities , structures , or uses served by
such off-street parking.
Section 3.
That Section 62.103 of the St. Paul Legislative Code is
further amended by adding a subdivision to re ad as follows :
/�ubd. 3a.7' /�HANGE IN USE OF STRUCTURES.7 T�'hen
an existing structure cha.nges to a use which re-
uires 30 ercent or more arkin than the revious
use o -s ree ar in over an a ove t at ac u-
a rovi e or t e revious use s a e
provi e in e amoun o e i erence e ween
the two. New uses which result in a requirement
of five spaces or fewer shall be exempt.
WHITE - CITV CI.ERK
PINKS - FINANCE CITY OF �SAINT PAUL Council /'� �I �y /�
CANARY -DEPARTMENT File NO. r, � p• /� O /
Bl2JE - MAVOR
� Ordin�nce Ordinance N�. /�o�O.S�
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
Page 3.
Section 4.
This ordina.nce is deemed a part of the St. Paul Legislative
Code and sha.11 be incorporated therein and given an appropriate
cha.pter and/or section number at the time of the next revision
of said Legislative Code.
Section S.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days
after its passage, approval and publication.
COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of:
Yeas Nays
-f���✓u��/
Drew In Favor
Masanz �
Scheibel A gai ns t BY
Tedesco
W°$"' JAN 15 1g85
Adopted by Council: Date Form Approved by y Attorney •
Certified Pa s b ci Se a BY
By
Approved Mayo : �-�� - ��J N 16 19 Approved by M ar for Submission to Council
B BY
PUStt�1E� J AN � E� 1985
, . . o� G�o
1 ann i ng DEPARTFIENT. � �7��
` Chuck McGui re ��TACT �7���`�
7494 - ext. 313 PHONE v
May 25, 1984 DATE reen �r � '
(Routi�g and Explanation Sheet)
Assi Number for Routin Orde Cli All Locations for oral Si ature :
�partme�t Di rector . ,
4 City Attorney ��
2 Di rector of Management/Ma�yor ,,,���� R�C��V�p
Fi nance and Management Servi ces Di rector � _�� MAY 3 : �
� r98i�
3 City Cierk MAV �
nR S ���;�E
Budget Director
4 City Council
� ��w� ��
i�hat Will be Achieved by Taking Action on the Attached Materials? (Purpose/Rationale):
These proposed amendments to the Zoning Code will require off-street parking for changes
in use, expansions of use, and outside use. 7'he amendments implement a major recom-
mendation of the Grand Avenue �'orty Acre Study adopted by the City Council on
November 3, 1983.
Financial , Budgetary and Personnel Impacts Anticipated:
Funding Source and Fu�d Activity Number Charged or Credit�d:
Attachments (List and Nur�er all AttacF�ents�:
1. Draft letter from Mayor to City Council transmitting Planning Comnission recommendation
(for Mayor's signature) .
2. Planning Commission Resolution.
3. Parking Amendments (10 copies) .
_
DEPARTMEMT REVIEW CITY ATTORNEY REVIEt�I . �
Or inance , .. . :
Yes X No Counci 1 Resol ution Requi red? Il������ii Requi red? X Yes - No
Yes X No Insurance Required? Insurance Sufficient? Yes No
Yes X No Insurance Attached?
Revision of October, 1982
(�PP RPVPI"CP SidP for �Instructions)
I , �: , .. ..�:;.: . . .... .... .. . _ :.
..._ . . . . . ..., ; ,.. . . .. .
. , . ., . ,.. . . ..
� ��. _..�� �,:.�-:. . .� ., .._... .:. _ . .
, . � t
... . .. ...w..:,:..�.r _ , w ,.
,W �.: •., .:�s._ ��t�.��,.«�:'i���YWm I��i�Yl�uiYiftal�isYJ'��m�'>+
• ' ��- 17� �'1
' ' � /yav�
PARKING-RELATED AMENDMENTS Revised �
. 10/3/84
4.6 Section 62.103 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Clarify when and where parking is required.
Proposed Revision Subd. 1. Off-street parking. �qe�=e-sba��-�e
��e�r�de�-�p-a��-��s���s�s3-e�cse��-i�-a-�-4-e�-B-�
B�s���s�-3-a�-�qe-���e-e�-e�es��s�a-8�-ep�a��e►�ep� '
e€-a��r-�+aip-��}���pg3-a��e►�e���e-e€€-s��ee�
�a�k��g-s�ases. Except in a B-4 or B-5-District,
off-street arkin s aces shall be rovided in
a istricts at the time of erection, enlargement
� or expansion of all buildin s in accordance with
the requirements of t is section. Before a
certificate of occupancy shall e issued, the
number of off-street parking spaces provided shall
be as hereinafter prescribed.
DISCUSSION
This change makes the section more readable and
more concise.
4.7 Section 62.103 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Clarify intent to require parking for expanded
usable floor area.
Proposed Revision Subd. 3. Enlargement or expansion of
existing buildings. s��bs�b�es,--8��-s��ee�
pa�i��pg-sba��-�e-��e�+}�e�-€e�-a��-qew-������q�s
�p-asee��apee-w��q-�be-�e��}�e�ep�s-e€-�q�s
ses��ew, When existing buildings are enlarged
or when uses are expanded within an existing
building into an area previousl excluded from
usable floor area, off-street parcing shall be
provi ed for the additional usable floor area
s�aee-e�-��s�ease�-���e�s��y-e�-�se in accordance
with the requirements of this section, unless the
existing off-street parking, after the enlargement
or expansion, meets the requirements that this
section would impose on new buildings, for all
facilities, structures or uses served by such off-
street parking.
Renumber
DISCUSSION
This change addresses situations where, for
instance, a bar expands into an area previously
used for storage, utility space, or common areas
and, under the code, provides no additional
parking.
. . . __.. _. .. . , � _ . . _, . :: �,�.
�-� - i7°9
� � �y��
4.8 Section 62.103 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Add parking requirements for increased
intensity of use.
New Section Subd. 4. Change in use of structure. When an
existin structure chan es to a use which re uires
thirt ercent 30 or more arkin than the
previous use, off-street par ing, over and above
that actuall rovided for the revious use,
s al e provided in t e amount of t e ifference -
in the two. New uses which result in a requirement
�t ��� of five spaces or fewer shall e exempt.
� � Renumber
�� '° � �
DISCUSSION
One of the major recommendations of the Grand
Avenue Forty Acre Study was: .
The zoning code should be changed to require the
. provision of additional parking when a new or more
intensive use of any building or premises generates
increased demand for parking. Parking should be
required for outdoor uses such as outdoor
restaurants. �
The study went on to say:
"One of the real causes of the parking problems on
Grand Avenue is the provision in the zoning code
allowing businesses to move into existing buildings
without providing additional off-street parking
spaces when the demand for parking generated by the
new use might be far greater than that of the
previous use the structure was built for. The
Green Mill , for example, was able to convert a
former auto repair garage to a restaurant without
providing adequate off-street parking. A
restaurant has a parking requirement much greater
than that of an auto repair garage, but the zoning
code requires the requirement to be met only when a
' building is newly constructed or physically added
to.°
�.L t�,:�� :�,y �:,�:,v,�.:.�:�.a�•��„s,._� �>.���ow.`� --�._.._� _ �
_ �--°'�"--.�:�.+��"�=""_ -+ir.sr "�—� � -:... _ ��+�._;v�u .�..,,�:�..���a.�r.9"r"...�=�:�v-�..
' �� `/`7��
' � � �Jc�/�.
"The zoning code should be changed to get some
control over the amount of off-street parking
required when a new use of a building generates a
demand for parking much greater than the amount of
� parking required by the building's previous use.
Additional parking should be required, for
instance, if the types of businesses that go into
the vacant space at 1330 Grand generate a lot of
additional demand for parking. Such a requirement
would help to avoid parking problems like that of
Crocus Commons. Without such a requirement,
parking intensive businesses moving into 1330 Grand
could create an even more chaotic parking situa�ion
� at Grand and Hamline."
Research of approximately thirty other cities of
comparable age and size indicates that Saint Paul
is one of the few cities which does not require
parking when a use is intensified. Some require '
the full code requirement, while others use a
percentage of the difference.
The 30 percer�t requirement means that only uses
which change substantiaily would require parking,
such as an office (1:200) to a bar (1:100)=100% or
showroom (1:800) to a retail shop (1:150)=1033�
change. Small businesses are exempted if the
change results in five or fewer spaces.
.� , - . �'�'- /���
. 4. 7 62. 103 subd. ��a�
4 .(considering numbering)�. Generally,
codifier wauld prefer just to add new subdivisions ,.i
because this means fewer revisions in the index and �
in other sectioris of the code where a specific
section number or subdivision number is referred to. �
If it's important to have these added sections close
to existing sL�:i;�-isions 4 and 5, however, that 's okay.
.. , , t
�`
4.8 62. 103 subd. 5 (considering numbering - see comment. �
under 4.7), �,
Second from last line: difference in the two �
diff erence between? � �� .
_
Also, last line, five s aces or fewer - Does this
mean five additiona spaces or ive s paces total �
� . requiremen �i er way, it would help if we ' • s
� state exactly what is meant. .
4.10 Sec. 62.106 (2) . We should specify that only the ;
� first paragraph is being revised. �
In the second and third paragraphs,"setba.ck" should
be "set back"
�
� , 4.13 62. 106 (6) "sideyard" should .be "side yard" � ✓
. . . . ....... ."_+_ _ - , • ' _�,('"'1'
t)'-
y 4.15 �:107 (g) - (g) should be (9) " �'
4. 16 62.108 subd. 5 - Instead of "meet setbacks of the U''
district" would it be better to say "meet setback ��
_ requirements of the district" .
4.17 62.108 - specify subd. 1 (6) . � . •
. . • 4. 19 62. 108 subd. 4. Second line "sure" s/b "such" - �
However, it would be easier to read if the word _ �
were stricken altogether. �'
� 4.20 62.108 subd. 6. Specify first para�raph only
�o be amended (when ordinance is written) '
� ' ;
' � � 4.21 62. 114 - When ordinance�i written s ecify f irst �
or introductory pa raph only is be' g revised.
This�� version uses 'multifamily" an present ordinance
uses "multiple fam ". Since t term is defined,
it shouldn't be change . �ast �entence of the
present paragraph doe�s not appear here. � It should
be included and amended:
Private outdoor pools and hot tui�s shall meet
the following requirements as app icable:
� � om,
� � . Ff
. � �� �,d�
. CITY OF SAINT PAUL /7��
-���o�;� OFFIC� OP' TFI� CITY COIINCIL
� 1!9���YY99�!
q'l�t4RY�,�1
�a' Ddte ; October 3, 1984
COMM (TT � E RE PORT
TO = Saint Paul City Councit
FROM = Commiftee Oh City Development and Transportation
CHAIR William L. Wilson
Planning Commission amendments to the Zoning Code to require off-street
parking for changes in use, expansions of use, and outside use.
Committee recommends :
Deletion of Subdivision 4
Amendment of Subdivision 3 (Attached)
. Adoption of Subdivision 3 (as amended)
Adoption of Subdivision 5
CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAIN'T PAUL� MINNESOTA 55102
�^�_
. � _ � , ��- �7�9 .
' /��0.5
62 .103. Parking Requirements .
Subdivision l. O�f-street parking. g�e�e-sI�a��--�e-g�e�a��e�-�� �
a��-d�s��}e�s=-e�eeg�-�r�-a-B-4-s�-B-�-��s���e�,--a�-�l�e-���e -
e�-e�ee��e�-s�-e��a�gex�e��-e�-a���a��-�at�}�����T-at��e�eb��e
e��-s��ee�-�a�����-sgaeesT Exc�pt in a S-4 or B-5 Di�trict,.
off-street parkina spaces shall be provided in all districts
at the time of erection, enlarqement or expansion of all
buildincts in accordance with the reauirements of this section.
Before a certificate of occupancy shall be issued, the n�umber
of off-street parking spaces provided shall be as hereinafter
prescribed.
subd. 3. Enlargement or e.xpansion of existinct� buildinQS.s���e���esT
A��-s��ee�-ga������s�a��-Tae--p�e���e�-�e�-a��-�e�-�e�����gs
��-aeee��a�ee-t����i-��te-�e��t��e�e��s-a�-���s-see��e�T W'Fien •
existing buildings are enlarged or when uses are expanded
within an exxstinct buildina into an area previouslv excluded
from usable floor areall, off-street parking shall be
provided for the additional usable floor area s�aee-e�
��e�ease�.-���e�s���-e��-t�se ih accordance �ith the requirements
of this� section, �nless the existing off-street parking, after the
enlargement or ex�ansion, meets tfie reqnirements that this
�ect�on would i.mpose on new buildings, for all facilities,
structures or uses ser�ed by such off-street parking.
� � ' ' .Z �� /709
_•b�.=Y o.,� G'T�.�Y �F`� �A I N7.' PAUL / ll�
. o� ��' '� UFFICE OF TH£ MAYOR ��
., „i�it iiin
d ni1 11!U C
�` � 347 CITY HALL
t°�� SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA SS102
GEORGE LATIh1ER (612) 248-4323 /
MAYOR /'�� � �/
,�` � .e U.
>
May 25, 1984 rl��
Council President Victor Tedesco
and Council Members
City Hall and Court House
Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102
Dear President Tedesco and Council Members:
On May 25, 1984, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously
approved a resolution recormnending a number of amendments to the Zoning Code
which would regulate parking for existing structures. These proposed changes
are in response to major recorr�nendations of the Grand Avenue Forty Acre Study
which the City Council adopted on November 3, T983.
The lack of adequate off-street parking often results in conflicts between
businesses and neaghborhoods. One of the major reasons is that the Zoning Code
doesn't require any off--street parking for an exasting structure unless the
actual "foot print" of the structure is enlarged; a vacant hardware store may
change to a more intense use like a restaurant without providing any parking or
a bar might expand into a storage area without providing any parking. Another
�rowing phenomenom, the patio restaurant, has caused its share of prol�'c~�s since
current interpretation of the Code requires no parking for these oucdoor uses.
I believe these amendments to the Zoning Code will contribute significantly to
the alleviation of some of these conflicts.
I am transmitting these amendments at the request of tF►e Planning Commission with
my recommendation for your timely review and approval�.
Sincerely,
'i
,, �
%r 7
e e Lat�mer
Ma o
GL:DMC:pmk
��a
� . .
�. �' ~ . Parlci n�-Relat�i �Amendments � �'�- i�o�
r . i����'
4.6 Section 62.103 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Clarify intent to require parking for expanded
usable floor area.
Proposed Revision Subd. 3. Enlargement of structures. Off-street parking
shall be provided for all new buildings in accordance
with the requirements of this section. When existing
buildings are enlarged, or when the principal use is expanded
to an area reviously excluded from usable floor area,
off-street parking shall be provided for t e additional
usable floor area sp�Ee-e�-i�E��se�-i�€e�i��-�€-tise in
accordance with the requirements of this section, unless
the existing off-street parking, after the enlargement
or expansion, meets the requirements that this section
would impose on new buildings, for all facilities, structures
of uses served by such off-street parking.
DISCUSSION
This change addresses situations where, for instance,
a bar expands into an area previously used for storage,
utility space, or common areas and, under the code,
provides no additional parking.
4.7 Section 62.103 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Add requirement for outdoor service areas.
New Section Subd. 4. Outdoor service areas. Ir� the case o# outdoor
, service areas, such as outdoor restaurants, a_ r�shall
eb require at t e rate o i #y ercent of t at re uir�
for t�"e indoor use. No outside area s a e enc ose
unless t e avai a le ar in s a meet t e re uirements
of t is section. -
Renumber
DISCUSSION
The Grand Avenue Forty Acre Study pointed out the '
need for a parking requirement�for outdoor uses, such
as restaurant patios. Parking requirements are based
on "usable floor area," which by definition must be within
a buiiding. The seasonal nature of outside serving areas
is the basis for fifty percent of the normal requirement.
However, the full requirement must be met if the area
is enclosed; this is to prohibit a business from adding
a patio and later enclosing an "existing" building - and
providing no parking.
. • •.
� A ��
' , • . �)
�
4.8 Section 62.103 PARKING REQUIREMENTS '
Add parking requirements for increased intensity
of use.
New Section Subd. 5. Chan e in use of structure. When an existin
structure c an es to a use-w ic re uires t irt ercent
3096 or more arkin than the revious use, off-street
ar in s all be rovided in the amount of the difference
in the two. New uses w ich result in a re uirement of
ive spaces or ewer s e exempt.
— �
Renumber
DISCUSSION
One of the major recommendations of the Grand Avenue
Forty Acre Study was:
� The zoning code should be changed to require the provision
of additional parking when a new or more intensive use
� of any building or premises generates increased demand
for parking. Parking should be required for outdoor uses
such as outdoor restaurants.
The study went on to say:
"One of the real causes of the parking problems on Grand
Avenue is the provision in the zoning code allowing businesses
to move into existing buildings without providing additional
off-street parking spaces when the demand for parking
generated by the new use might be far greater than that
of the previous use the structure was built for. The
Green Mill, for example, was able to convert a former
auto repair garage to a restaurant without providing
adequate off-street parking. A restaurant has a parking
requirement much greater than that of an auto repair
garage, but the zoning code requires the requirement
to be met only when a building is newly constructed
or physically added to."
"The zoning code should be changed to get some control �
over the amount of off-street p�rking required when
a new use of a building generates a demand for parking
much greater than the amount of parking required by
the building's previous use. Additional parking should
be required, for instance, if the types of businesses
that go into the vacant space at 1330 Grand generate
a lot of additional demand for parking. Such a requirement
would help to avoid parking problems like that of Crocus
Commons. Without such a requirement, parking intensive
businesses moving into 1330 Grand could create an even
more chaotic parking situation at Grand and Hamline.
., .. . . . '. . �� 7d 9
, . . �
• � i7�o�
Research of approximately thirty other cities of com-
parable age and size indicates that Saint Paul is one
of the few cities which does not require parking when
a use is intensified. Some require the full code requirement,
while others use a percentage of the difference.
The 30 percent requirement means that only uses which
change substantially would require parking, such as an
office (1:200) to a bar (1:100) = 100� or showroom (1:800)
to a retail shop (1:150) = 10339i6 change. Small businesses
are exempted if the change results in five or fewer
spaces.
� . . � ��-i�a9
' ' . . � � �7�a��
± c��y of saint paul .
plannjng commrss�on resalutia�
. �i�e n�m�r 84-1�
U�t� M���r 1qRd
LJHEREAS, Chapter 60 of the SAINT PAUL LEGISLATIVE CODE provides for amendments to the
ZONING CODE; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.257(5), the Planning Commission did hold
a public hearing on the proposed ZONING TEXT AMEt�DMENTS FIVE at its regular meeting
on May 25, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined:
1. That the number of real estate descriptions affected by the ordinance renders
the obtaining of written consents impractical ;
2. That a survey of an area in excess of forty acres has been made;
3. That a determination has been made that the amendments as proposed are re1ated
to the overall needs of the community, to existing land use, and to the Com-
prehensive Plan; and
4. fhat pursuant to State Statutes proper notice of the hearing was given in the
PIONEER PRESS and DISPATCH on May 11, May I8, and on May 25, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the ��, .:��i Avenue Forty Acre Study adopted by the City Council on November 3,
" 1983, inciuded the following recommendation:
"The zoning code should be changed to require the provision of additional parking
when a new or more intensive use of any building or premises generates increased
d�emand for parking. Parking should be required for outdoor uses such as outdoor
restaurants"; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Text Amendments Five did examine these parking issues and did
recommend amendments to the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the parking amendments are cite� in Zoning Text Amendments Five as 4.6
Section 62.103 Subd. 3, 4.7 Section 62.103 Subd. 4; and 4.8 62.103 Subd. 5 PARKING
P.EQUIREMENTS; and •
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes tfie urgency of these parking amendments
and seperates them from Text Amendments Five for earlier transmittal ;
��Ve� �y. Mr. Panqal �
��—���d �y Mc Summarc
.
�s� ����� �� �
ac�ainst �
*� ' - ,' . . , . ����09
,
' c�ty of saint paul ��a�3
pEar�ning cannmission resoluti�
ftle nur��r 84-�1
da�e Ma v �S. i 9R4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that.the Planning Commission recommends approval
of these parking related amendments to the Zoning Code as attached hereto and
directs the Planning Administrator to forward the amendments and this resolution
to the Mayor and City Council for their review and action. _ �
�noved by Mr. Panqal '
s�a��d by MG �„mmprt
En �av�r 17
.
a�lt-�st � o
. _ _ .a.. .
�..�r,.�� . , ... .�:w_ . _ . _ . �. :_ ...�.._�.,� ._
. � . ���....�. _. ..��.:..�..�..�,.�..
• ' '�.��tS�1� 9EZ6184
�� ���'S'
DISCUSSION /7�j�
Parking requirements appropriately belong in Section 62.103
Parking.
2.17 Section 60.413 PRINCIPAL USES SUBJECT TO SPECIAL C�NDITIONS
(R-1 THROUGH R-4)
Retained by Planning Commission for further study
2.18 Section b0.413 PRINCIPAL USES SUB�ECT TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS
� (R-1 THROUGH R-4)
Provide for conversion/reuse of structures
New Section (12) Conversion or reuse of non-residential structures
with conforming uses sub�ect to the following conditions•
. (a) The structure was originally constructed for non-
residential purpose. '
. � � (b) The Planning Commission shall find that the proposed
use and plans are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. .
(c) The Planning Commission shall find that the proposed
� use and any structural al#erations or additions
are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
and land uses.
(d) Parking for the new use shall be provided in accordance
� wAth the requirements af Section 62.103 for new
structures.
(e) Applications #or conversion or reuse shali include
a notarized petrtion af t�vo-thirds of the property
owners wrthin 100 feet of tne property .ero�osed for
the reuse, site plans, building elevations, and land-
scaping pians and other information which the .
� Planning Commission may request.
Renum ber � �
Atso add to Section 60.513 OS-1
DISCUSSION
Over the past several years, a number of cases have
involved the conversion of non-residential structures
• to residential units and commercial uses. Typically,
these have been former schools {the Performing Arts
Center) or churches (the Synagogue on Ashland) Iocated �
in residential zones. The non-residential structure is `
a problem for at least two reasons: because churches,
schools and other institutional uses are permitted uses,
even in the single family zones, they cannot quatify for
status as non-conforming permitting a change in non-
con#orming use; and they usually, therefore, require
, . - . ! ^ ';:. . ...�.�-i .q { _ . ���a�
.. .,...�. . .. , . ::,- '_ '.. ' .
. . . . �;.�. . �,.�.., . ...' .. <... .... , ..:,� .. _
�..,•" • -��� ��....._�..ma_ ,._.�.aa:�� . .��s-._ �'�;_:.
..L.,. - _:y�'Yi4if/ - .,.
- - ��-/7�9
µ i��a�
Revised
the required setbacks from said abuttin districts
s al e equal to a minimum of / times the
ei ht of the buildin s, exce t as note in Section
DISCUSSION
The intent and requirement remain the same; this
changes simplifies the language of the Section.
Exceptions allowing for mechanicals are included in
Section 63.103.
3.11 Section 61.104 NOTES TO 61.104 INDUSTRIAL ZONES
Clean-up
Proposed Change (e) An obscuring wall shall be provided on those
� sides of the property used for open storage,
parking, or service drives, loading and unloading �
or servicing and abutting land zoned for
residential use. The extent of such wall shall be
determined by the Planning Corrmission on the basis
of usage. Such wall shall not be less than four
feet six inches in height and may, depending an the
industrial operations, be required to be eight feet .
in height, all subject to the requirements of
"GENERAL PROVISIONS" Section ��,�A93-!'A�se��=}pg
wa��s�€eqees." 62.107, Visual Screens".
DISCUSSION
This change cleans up an oversight in language when
new landscaping requirements were adopted.
3.12 Section 61.105 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Add P-1 setback requirements
i
81.106.Speciel dietricts I
Proposed Rev i s i on �ys ��� ��Y��� �� �
►a s�a na u* a s�rucn.w (►.r��n r«q o.�c.n�a ta R0°'
An�M WfAtA 8iM �� �
. Za�Mq dMekl �M � SbrN� FN F� mu� ol Mo �� �ai11EMq IFM1 I
. 1.105
SPtiC1ALDiSTRICI'S .
. PDNsnnedIkvslopaient e a • a • • • • a •
ESEapreaewsyServics none ,wne 2b ' 306 75c 7Se I.SOe 75t none 25 .
P-lYehiculeTPorkiig 4,OOOd �Od 1 15 s t �.L 4�- none )Il� I
DISCUSSION � �
The change in front, rear and side setbacks
standardizes parking setbacks and also adds a
requirement for setbacks for P-1 lots adjoining
corr�nercial property.
, .
, — —
, <. . . .� . : . .... .e.z`�,�_,��.� _W.,�.
�...� .. . . � , � ...iYi4alV N. ii � ��i�V - wi...:,. ..`�.- '.:�..� ,
_�_ � ���1 ���y
' Revised �
/7�Q.5
3.13 Section 61.105 NOTES TO 61.105 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Clean up.
Proposed Revision (e) W�eqe�e�-a-R-�-B�s�G��s�_�s_sxea�e�3-�qexe
sqa��-�e-qxe��de� If the districts adjoining the
P-1 District require a reater setback, frontage
set acks equal to at least the minimum required
setback standards set forth in the "SCHEDULE OF
REGULATIONS" which pertain �to the adjoining
districts�shall be provided. A wa�� visual screen
� shall be located on the minimum setbacc line.
DISCUSSION
This change makes language in this section
consistent with Section 62.107 Visual Screens.
3.14 Section 61.105 NOTES TO 61.105 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Delete unnecessary footnote.
Proposed Revision �€�--Ple-s��e-ex-�=ea�-�a�ds-sqa��-�e-�=e����e�
e�ee��-�p-�bese-sases-wbe�e�p-�qe-R-�-�a�se�-bas-a
Es��ep-�=e�a��epsb��-w��W-�es�dew��a�-�►a�=�s-as�ess
� a-ee��ep-se�a�=a���g-s��ee�-e�-axe-a��e}q��g-�e-s�de
�ra�ds-�p-��e-sa►�e-��esl�;-�qep-a-�axd-e��a�-�e-�qe-
� ��p����a-s��e-�axd-�e��}�e�-�p-�be-ad�aeep�-d�s��=�s�
sqa��-�e-�e����=e�,
DISCUSSION
This change corresponds to that in 3.12.
3.15 Section 61.105 NOTES TO 61.105 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Delete redundant notation.
Proposed Revision ���--Ne-������pg-e�-s�������e-e�qe�-�qa�-�Wa�-�e�=
�be-sbe��e�-e€-�qe-a��ep�ap�-sqa��-�e-e�es�e�.
DISCUSSION
This requirement is included in Section 60.720-P-1
Vehicular Parking District.
- ` �� �'�/i��q
/�a�'
PARKING-RELATED AMENDMENTS Revised
10/3/84
4.6 Section 62.103 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Clarify when and where parking is required.
Proposed Revision Subd. 1. Off-street parking. �qe�e-sqa��-�e
��ev��e�-}p-a��-d}s���s�s3-exee��-�w-a-�-4-e�-8-�
B�s���e�-3-a�-�We-���e-e€-e�e���e�-e�-ep�a�gea�ep�
e�-ap�r-�a�p-��}���pg3-ab�e�e���e-e�€-s��=ee�
�a�k�p�-s�aees. Except in a B-4 or B-5-District,
off-street arkin s aces shall be rovided in
al istricts at the time of erection, enlargement
or expansion of all buildings in accordance with
the re uirements of this section. Before a
certificate of occupancy shall e issued, the
number of off-street parking spaces provided shall
be as hereinafter prescribed.
DISCUSSION
This change makes the section more readable and
more concise.
4.7 Section 62.103 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Clarify intent to require parking for expanded
usable floor area.
Proposed Revision Subd. 3. Enlargement or expansion of
existing buildings. s��as��►=es,--9�€-s��ee�
pa�k�pQ-sqa��-�e-��ey��ed-€e�-a��-pew-�bi��}p�s
��-asesxdawee-w��b-�qe-�=e����e�e��s-e�-�b�s
ses��ep� When existing buildings are enlarged
or when uses are expanded within an existing
buildin into an area previousl excluded from
usable floor area, off-street par ing shall be
provided for the additional usable floor area
s�a�e-e�-��s�ease�-���e�as���r-e€-�se in accordance
with the r�quirements of this section, unless the
existing off-street parking, after the enlargement
or expansion, meets the requirements that this
section would impose on new buildings, for all
facilities, structures or uses served by such off-
street parking.
Renumber -
DISCUSSION
This change addresses situations where, for
instance, a bar expands into an area previously
used for storage, utility space, or common areas
and, under the code, provides no additional
parking.
, ,. , . _
� • � � � � � � d'f-/�°q
i7a�
4.8 Section 62.103 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Add parking requirements for increased
intensity of use.
New Section Subd. 4. Change in use of structure. When an
existin structure chan es to a use which re uires
thirt ercent 30 or more arkin than the
previous use, off-street par ing, over and above
that actuall rovided for the previous use,
s al be provide in the amount of the ifference •
in the two. New uses which result in a re uirement
of five spaces or fewer s all be exempt.
- Renumber
DISCUSSION
One of the major recomnendations of the Grand
Avenue Forty Acre Study was: .
The zoning code should be changed to require the
provision of additional parking when a new or more
intensive use of any building or premises generates
increased demand for parking. Parking should be
required for outdoor uses such as outdoor
restaurants. �
7he study went on to say:
"One of the real causes of the parking problems on
Grand Avenue is the provision in the zoning cade
allowing businesses to move into existing buildings
without providing additional off-street parking
spaces when the demand for parking generated by the
new use might be far greater than that of the
previous use the structure was built for. The
Green Mill , for example, was able to convert a
former auto repair garage to a restaurant without
providing adequate off-street parking. A
restaurant has a parking requirement much greater
than that of an auto repair garage, but the zoning
code requires the requirement to be met only when a
building is newly constructed or physically added
t0.°
.
�d.—�� : ,. . .� ; _ :.:
_ �
� ��y��09
�7g?o��
"The zoning code should be changed to get some
controi over the amount of off-street parking
required when a new use of a building generates a
demand for parking much greater than the amount of
parking required by the building's previous use.
Additional parking should be required, for
instance, if the types of businesses that go into
the vacant space at 1330 Grand generate a lot of
additional demand for parking. Such a requirement
would help to avoid parking problems like that of
Crocus Commons. Without such a requirement,
parking intensive businesses moving into 1330 Grand
could create an even more chaotic parking situation
at Grand and Hamline."
Research of approximately thirty other cities of
comparable age and size indicates that Saint Paul
is one of the few cities which does not require
parking when a use is intensified. Some require '
the full code requirement, while others use a
percentage of the difference.
The 30 percent requirement means that only uses
which change substantially would require parking,
such as an office (1:200) to a bar (1:100)=100% or
showroom (1;800) to a retail shop (1:150)=1033�
change. Small businesses are exempted if the
change results in five or fewer spaces.
. _ . ��-/7U �
� • �.
/7�a�
Nance oF roairc ar.�snva
NaUee is haeD��Ivm that�publk heario� .
�dll De Add Eefore the City Counell on tLe
YStb dq of Oetober,lYl/at IObD A.Y.in tLe
bas.Clty Hall
�nd Court Haue. St Paul. Yimsota b
ro��D+aP� � ■mmdmmts to the
S�fot Paul Zminl Ordinaaee.Chaptea!O6{
ot the S�Iat Paul Le�lslative Code u tbh
nLte to Zonin�'h:t Am�odmmb Five and
ammdmeab�vEic� wwld re�ul�te parkip�
t�acistlnL strvetura.At said Ume and plaoe,
t6e CouncL wlll he�r aU persana idative to
t61s ProPas�7•
Dsted October Y.IYB�.
ALBERT B.OISON
�U'Ckrk •
. (O�ber 19.1�
/ t! �
� " j r �� l
lst / �,`/J�j / �� .� 2nd � � � ��
3rd /�/�� Adopted f`� !" ''%�='! -
�:
- Yeas Nays
DREW -
, y�
- MASANZ L �%} t�F��-�`�,
C. E/, i�z -r
!` �±.= .
NICOSIA �, J (' ; , �i
�.G Lr. �� .9 ��.- ='�
�.- t,�,� ��
SCHEIBEL ro?�°-y � ��V
. r:1
S OvNEN - :'�:�.�::.�
�dILSON ,
MR. PRESIDENT TEDESCO
.�
\ _. _
-�„�,�.�.,�--,.___
_ � �
,�f,,�� �
1,� �� �
{r.:, �
i 1^�:=.�!��-;
�.,
�1'.;-�:�-
�.�:;= , -