10-403AMENDED 6/09/2010 (Paae 10 only)
Council N�ie # LO-403
Green Sheet # 3104037
ORDINANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MiNNESOTA
Presented
by
Off-street Parldng Reqnirements and Design Standards Zoning Amendments
2
3 An ordinance amending various secflons of the Saint Paul Zoning Code: Leg.
4 Code § 60.200, General Defini6ons; Leg. Code § 63.200, pazking requirements;
5 Leg. Code § 63.300, off-street pazking facility standazds and design; Leg. Code §
6 65, land use definitions and development standards; Leg. Code Code § 66,
7 mning district uses; and, Leg. Code § 67, overlay dish-icts; and creating a new
8 section § 63.122, entitled "Travel demand management."
10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission passed a resolution on Maq 22, 2009, file number #09-33, initiaring a zoning
11 study to consider amendments to the zoning code regarding off-street pazking faciliTy standazds and design in
12 response Yo new policies in the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan related to land use, transportation and the
13 environment, and to changing best pracEices in pazking management across the country; and
14 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on December I8, 2009, released drafr off-street pazking requirement and
15 design standazds zoning aznendments for formal public review and conducted a public hearing on January 22, 2010,
16 norice of which was published pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 462357, Subd. 3, and sent to the Eazly Notification
17 System and other interested parties; and
18 WHEREA5, the Planning Commission considered the public testimony, made a few modifications to the draft code
19 amendments, and submitted its recommendaYions on these Zonin� Code amendmenu to the City Counci] on March
20 12, 2010; and
21 WIfEREAS, the City Counci] having conducted a public hearing on the proposed off-strcet parking requirements
22 and design standazds at which ali interested parties were given an opporiunity to be heard, notice of which was
23 published in the Legal Ledger and sent to the CiTy's Early Notification System; and having considered ali the facts
24 and recommendations concerning the amendments;
25 THE COITNCIL OF THF, CTTY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN:
26
27
Secrion 1
2$ That I,egislarive Code Chapter 63, Regulations of General Applicability, pertaining to off-street parking
29 requ'srements, facility standards and desigri, is hereby amended as follows:
30 Sec. 63.201. Off-street parking.
31 �°���* ;„ ° n n.._ � c a:,..,:,.« ,.n� street pazking spaces shall be provided in all disuicts, exce t�B4 and B5, at the
32 time of erection, enlazgement or expansion of all buildings in accordance with the requirements of this section.
33 Before a certificate of occupancy shall be issued, the number of off-street pazking spaces provided shall be as
34 hereinafter prescribed.
35 w..n t,,.... i,..,......,,. .t:_a.. �� z� � .a,........w„_ �.,..,,:.,,.r..._.._o..,...:��.�
36 Sec. 63.202. Site plan reqaired.
37 A site plan approved by the planning commission shall be required for the establishment of a new off-sheet pazking
38 facitity, for the paving of an unimproved off-street parking facility and for the repaving of an off-street pazking
39 Pacility whose e�sting paved surFace is removed. These facilities shall meet all standards and regulations for parking
(d.l C_Y,�.,
10-403
40 facilities and site plans contained in this zoning code, and all paving shall require a building pernut pursuant to
41 chapter 33 of the Legislative Code. In such case where the zoninE administrator detemunes that excess oarking
42 exists for the site the pazkin shall be broueht into compliance with this zonine code unless there is an existine
43 shared parkine arraneement. A site plan shall not be required when a new coating is apphed over an exishng paved
44 surface. Site plans for one- to four-family dwellings may be approved by the zoning admimstrator.
45 Sec. 63.203. Multi-tenant buildings and shared areassgaees.
46 'I`he parking requirement for each use in a multi-tenant building shall be determined based on the percenTage of the
47 gross floor area used by each use in the mulri-tenant building includina shared areas. ^ '��'°'' °-'°�' °..^'' "° ""
48 , �
49 , o
50 �- ,� ,, �. ,,,��_„�..,...�:,.,,, � _.._,...;a;,,rt
e r
51 Sec. 63.204. Change in use within a structure.
52 �
53
54
55 a �
56 •
57
58 > >
59 .,, „ .., ,.e...,..e ,w.,., s:.,,, ic� ,.
�
60
61
62
63 �,,._,.:..,� .. .. n � ..�.,..,o
64 '�` "°�°-« �'-�.°�.r°° When anv existin¢ use within a structure changes to a new use which requires more off-street
65 parkinQ spaces than the existine use as deternuned bv Section 63 207 then the additional required off-street parkinQ
66 spaces must be urovided if fewer off-street narking spaces are rectuired bv the new use excess narkinQ suaces mav
67 remain. When a shucture, or part of a structure, is vacant, the zoning administrator shall determine the previous
68 existing use for purposes of caleulating pazking requirements using city records, land use surveys or directories.
69 Sec. 63.205. Change in use of parking areas.
70 T`�����`�a �� �`'°�"�^''l� eExisting off-street parking facihties, accessory to one (1) or more principal uses,
71 structures or facilities, may be changed to another use when the remaining off-street parldng meets the requirements
72 that this section would impose on new buildings for all facilities, structures or uses, including the new use. When the
73 remaining off-sh parking does not meet such requirements, '- Fr ��' ��-'n^ ^°''°"''° °..''^':'"`° `_::.-
74 Y in � n „�,,,.,kea « off-street parking shall be provided for the existin¢ and new
75 uses in accordance with the requirements ofi�is-Secrion 63207.
76 Sec. 63.206. Rules for computing required parking.
77 (a) For the purpose of computing the number of parking spaces required, the definirion of "gross floor area" in
78 section 60.207 shall apply.
n . r �.�
iGEI�R3
79 (b) When units or measurements determining the number of required parking spaces result m the requirement of
80 a fractional space, any fraction up to and includin� one-half (I/2) shall be disregarded, and any fraction over
81 one-half (1/2) shall require one (1) parldng space.
82 (c) There shall be provided off-street parking spaces for all premises licensed for on-sale intoxicating liquor
83 (excluding restaurants licensed for wine, strong beer, or nonintoxicaring malt liquor) or entertainment as
84 provided herein:
85 (1) Issuance of a license to an e�sting structure not previously licensed during the Ywenty-four (24) months
86 preceding the app]ication, off-street pazking pursuant to section 63207.
87 (2) Expansion of a licensed structure with an on-sale intoxicaring liquor ��-an �a==a�==�license, off-
88 street parking at the same rate as transfer or new issuance to an existing structure not previously licensed,
89 plus twenty-Five (25) percent of any parking shortfall for the existing building licensed area. "Parking
90 shortfall" shall mean the difference between required parldng pursuanY to section 63.207 for the existing
91 licensed structure minus the number of parking spaces actually provided for that structure.
4raHn�rrrrar{
92 (3) Expansion of a licensed structure with an on-sale intoxicating liquor �.� icense, or an
93 upgrade in an entertainment license, when located within six hundred fifty (650) feet of another exisring
94 establishment with an on-sale intoxicating liquor or entertainment license shall provide an additional Fifteen
95 (IS) percent of any parking shortfall.
.� .... - -
._... _. -• -- :-. -• --
• - -
•• - - - - -
.. - - - ' ' -
... . . . . _
11 - - - - - - - -
� -_ _ -
1 -
1 - - - - -
1� - - _ _ �" '.
1 - .-- - -
1. - '- - - -- - "
. . .. . ..
� _ -�: • - -- � - a - •- - - - • - -
, ' - ' ' ' � _ ' _
•
,� - _ _
� _ '
T,.a..l D..��1.1«� T«
� -- � 6 'z 2-5
�tl C�tl
C1�
, -
. .
�.
. ..
�.�1•
. _ _.. � , . " '" ' ' " _�_..e..:��.:,.,_.:..
.�'� " _
___- _ _ _____—______ e'___"__'_
�
4
�
�
�
S
dt c _Y. �a
10-403
. , ..
.- , ...
��
a r. _ - - - -
� _ - _ - - -
- ' � - - - -
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
I50
151
152
153
(d) Shared Parkin The zonin¢ administrator mav authorize a reducrion in the total number of reauired oarkinQ
spaces for two (2) or more uses iomtiv providinQ off-street parkina when their resvecttve hours of oeak operahon
do not overlau Shared oazking shall be subiect to the location requirements of section 63 304 and the followmQ
conditions:
(1) Computation The number of shared snaces for two (21 or more distin�mshable land uses shall be
determined bv the followine procedure:
9
���'
�n i i e ....�. i nn�.�� nnn
a Mulriulv the minimum parkin¢ required for each individual use, as set forth in sechon 63.207
Parkin¢ re4uirements bv use bv the apurouriate nercentaee indicated in table 63.206(d), shazed
pazldn¢ for each of the six (6) desiQnated rime periods
b Add the resulrin¢ sums for each of the six (6) columns.
c The minimum sk�ared parkine requirement shall be the lu�hest sutn amone the six (61 columns
resultinQ from the above calculations.
(2) Other uses or hours o�eration If one (Il or all of the land uses oronosin� to make use of shared
�kine faciliries do not conform to the ¢eneral land use classifications or hours of ouerahon m table
63 206(d) shared uarldn¢ as deternrined bv the zonmo administrator then the aovl�cant shall submrt
sufficient data to indicate the orincioal o�eratin¢ hours of the uses Based uuon this informahon, the zoninQ
administrator shall determine the annroqriate shared parkinq rectuirement if anv for such uses.
(3) Alternative �ocedure An anohcation mav be subsnitted iequesrine that the zoninQ administrator
authonze a areater reduction in the total number of rec�uired parkinQ spaces for two (2) or more uses where
an apnlicant believes that table 63 206(d) shared narkine does not adequatelv account for circumstances
unique to the particular oropertv or �rooerties in cLuestion The apolicarion shall mclude, at a mimmum, a
�arking stud�with a detailed descnotion of the ur000sed uses their hours of ooeranon their antic�uated
�eak narkin demand and anticinated hours that such peak parkin¢ demand would occur. Based upon
information demonstratin¢ that the roeak narkine demand for the uses m auesnon would not comcide, the
zonine administrator mav authorize a sreater oarkinQ reduction than is authorized bv table 63.206(d) shared
arkin .
(4) Process An application for shared parkin¢ shall be submitted on a form apnroved bv the zoninQ
administrator The zonin� administrator mav imnose reasonable conditions to iruri¢ate ootenhal ne¢ative
effects of a shared narking a�teement PlanninQ commission aporoval is required if a shared oarinn�
agreement involves more than twentv five (251 shared oarking spaces results in more than a tturtY five (3S)
percent decrease in required parkinQ or involves 3 or more roarties or uses.
A,: rr,_
10-403
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
5 Com liance. Parties to a shared arldna aereement shall submit an annual statement Yo the zonina
administrator which venfies the nonconcurrent peak parkine hours of the buildines involved �nath the shared
�arkin aareement and a list of uses withm each buildina to vezifv no chanees have occurred that would
require additional narkin If one or more of the parties or uses apuroved for the shared parkms
arranoement chanees, the users shall submit an a lication to the zonme admimstrator. who will detemune
if the new combination of uses is elieible for a shared narkin¢ reduction or if additional off-street parkin� is
re�c uired.
�'ahle F3 206(dl. Sh azed Parkine
General Land Weekdavs Weekends
Use
Classificarion
2am-7am 7am-6um �m-2am 2am-7am 7am-6om 6vm-2am
Office 5% 100% 5% 0% 10% 0%
Retail sales and 0% 90% 80% 0% 100% 60%
services
Restaurant(not 10% 70% 100% 20% 70% 100%
24 hour
Residential 100% 60% 100% 100% 75% 90%
Theater 0% 40% 90% 0% 80% 100%
Hotel
Guest rooms 100% 55% 100% 100°/a 55% 100%
Restaurant 40% 60% 100% SO% 45% 100%
/laun e — `
Conference 0% 100% 100% 0°/a 100% 100%
rooms
Reli ious 0% 25% 50% 0°/a 100% 50%
institution
Rece hp on or 0% 70% 90% 0% 70% 100%
meerin¢ hall
Museum 0% 100% 80% 0% 100% 80%
School, Qrades 0% 100% 25% 0% 30% 10%
K-12
,.. - -
. -
. . "• . ,.::- .• --' .-•':•-•-- -- -:. - -- -
-- - • --_ -- -- - -- ._. _ . .. - :•••-- - -
(J, LC•to
10-403
� - - - - " - -
. - - - - - -- - - - -
: - - - - --- - -
-- -: ee .. . .. . .. :.. ...
. __ - _ - --
:� - -
18
1 02
183
184
a
_ � C � +1�.. ,.1....-e.i .. i '�
Y '1
: - - - - -
:. -
: - - "
i i Y-
:. _ ' " ' '
•' - '"
• - " '
. � •�.
� -
•i _ . _ .. ... �._ . . "'" ' " "' ' " ' ' "" ""' ' � " "
• ' '
�� _ _ _ - "
• - � �
• • " ' " _ ' " -
�• _ " ' -
�� "' '
' " ' ' ' _
, " " " - -
� "
'� " " " '
� ' " '
��
� -
2O0
209
210
211
212
213
214
Y"" ' . "" �� "" ' " " "' "" ' �:"'. � � .. .' ' • - '
-� - - - - - -
�e�±?ss�e��+a
-- ' - - - - - -
10-403
215
216
217
218
219
(a) Off-street aarkin¢ minimum. The minimum number of off-street parking spaces by type of use shall be
determiiied in accordance wrth .� .°..'.'... -''.==o ==-`-='-'"''° Table 63 207 Minimum Required Off-Street ParkinQ BV
Use.
220 Sec. 63.207. Parking requirements by use.
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
(b) Off street parkin¢ reductions The minimum number of off-street parkine spaces as determmed in Section
63 207(a) mav be reduced for:
�
'- - - - - - - - --
. . .. ... - • • -
-- -: !! -- -: - -• - ::••-• -- : : : : .:: --
I Shazed narkine as described in Section 63.206(dl
2 Bicvcle narkin¢ as described in Section 63.210(bl
3 Shared vehicle oarkm4 as described m Secrion 63.211.
Such reduction does not chan¢e the requirements of vara¢rauhs (c) and (d) below when mmimum uarldng is
exceeded nor does it change the maYimum number of off-street roarldne spaces uermitted for the use.
231 (c) O� street p arkine macimum Surface narkine facilities with more than fifreen (151 sroaces shall not be
232 created that exceed the specified off street narldn� minimum for food and beveraee uses bv mare than two
233 hundred (200) roercent or that exceed the snecified minimum for all other uses bv more than seventv (70)
234 p ercent unless a condirional use uermit is auoroved based on demonstration of need. As an alternatrve, parkinQ
235 sroaces over the maximum mav be provided in a structured parkinQ facilitv.
236 (d) Condition when minimum parkinQ exceeded When the minimum required oarkine as determined in Section
237 63 207( is Qreater than ten (10) svaces and is exceeded throu¢h the provision of addihonal surface oarinne,
238 sunrolemental stormwater landscauine shall be nrovided as required in Section 63 319(b)
239
10-403
for the
Community residenrial facility,
emergency housing faciliry,
free-standin foster care home.
overni¢ht shelter,
shelter for battered persons,
transitional housing facility
A43ssiex
Sober house
Rooming-house boardin hous�
D....«A:«..., e l...w.a
�-� �amm'
two bearoom umc = � rooms.
three bedroom unit = 4 rooms.
four bedroom umt = 5 rooms, and so on.
A den, librarv. or other extra room shall count as a
room� kitchen dinine and sanitarv facilities shall n
0.33 soaces per unit
1.5 spaces per every 4�-adult faciliry residents
1.5 spaces per every 4 adult re
1 suace per 3 occupancy units
1 space per eve 3
3
�_..«,..m:«.. �h,
��
Civic andlnstitutional
Day care eexte�
Elementary/middle
Senior high school
school
school business school arts school, dance school
cultural and
Golf course
r is�;;��,g�
commumTy
center
Church,-lchapel,�synagogue,/�e��le-�lace of worshiU
1 space per emptoyee
1 space per emplovee " '' '"'`"`
1 space per employee, '� a " w. and 1
sroace per 10 students
1 sUace per every 2 emplovees and 1 per everv 3 ful]-
time students not on campus or 1 for everv 3 part-time
students whichever is greater l�us reqmred oarkine for
- - - .;�,,;;.:• - __°,'-.,�
1 space per 500 sq. ft. GFA
1 space per 1 000 �58 sq. ft. GFA
1 space per 500 458 sq. ft. GFA
1 snace oer 250 sq. fr. GFA' ° °�' °'�`" �' � F �•
e€�ews-in the main unit of worship
10-403
Offices
Office 1 space qer 400 sq fr GFA
(includina but not limited to' administrative. financiai,
insurance rorofessional real estate and sales offices)
��a'�-�`�� �^.�r^�. �° ;
� ' 1 ♦,,,.FF.^° ��-F' .�.-.���.
.�` ' . ^' "
Photographic studio 1 space per 400 88�sq. ft. GFA
Medical facilities
u„�,.:�.,i �:8 1 suaces per 2 beds
Medical
Retail sales
bank, credit union,
buildine materials center,
business sales and services,
convenience market
currencv exchange,
dry cleanine,
commercial laundrv,
food and related eoods sales,
food shelf
fittniture/appiiance store,
gun shop shootine Qallerv
liauor store,
lumber yard,
massaee center,
pawn shop,
photocouving,
renair shon,
self-service laundromat,
supermarket,
tattoo shon,
ft. GFA
fr. GFA
1 snace oer 400 sct ft GFA uro to 30 000 sa. ft GFA,
�lus 1 sroace for each additional 800 sq. ft. GFA over
30 000 sa. ft. GFA
A) L_O.(n
10-403
Amended paqe 6/09/10
Greenhouse, earden center
funeral home 1 space per 1�0 s. ft. GFA
retail center 1 space per 400 38&sq. fr. GFA un to 30.000 sa ft
GFA, plus 1 svace for each addirional 800 sq ft GFA
Post office
service
I space per 500 sq. ft. GFA p'.;:� ;��Q
1 space per �00 sq. ft. GFA ���,i
Service business with s Showroom or workshom
Food
.. .
space per 900 sq. ft. GFA
Restaurant Coffee shop, tea house� 1
Establishment ° °��� � on-sale wine 1
�!�!�!��
Establishment with on-sale intoxicating liquor or �
entertainment license class A or B
Establishment with
entertainment license class �€ C
._
and breakfast residence
Hotel, inn e�motel
Commercial Recreation and Entertainn
Basketball, volleyball court
Bowling, bocce ball center, biiliard hall
Dance hall, bingo hall, �'��'-�-.� �^--�° -��--��
a
assembly halls without fixed seats, exhibirion hall
Gol£ dnving ran¢e
ft. GFA
�sn++_�e�e�.n...::
�. _
1 space per 100 sq. ft. GFA and as required in section
63.206(cl �' ' n��
1 space per 75 sq. ft. GFA and as required in section
- ' - - — =-° -
1� spaces per dwellmg unif and 0.5 spaces per guest
room
1 space per 3 occupancy units plus required �arldnQ
�Her�a�-for bars, restaurants, assembiv rooms
6 �spaces per court
2�-spaces per lane, 1? spaces per table plus
parking for other uses
1 space per 200 �sq. ft. GFA
10-403
Gol£, miniature #�ia�gel€
Health/morts club (includin2 but not hmited to: voea,
martial arts and dance studios) , ,
�� ^�
Marina
Stadium, sports arena
Swimming club
Tennis, racquetball, handball cc
Theater, auditorium assemblv Y
concert hall
ifomobile Services
Automobile convenience marke
Automobi]e repair station
Auto
sales
1 soace per hole
1 space per 400 ?68-sq. ft. GFA �k� 1-s�e�e�
e�gle�ee
1 space per 2 slips
1 space per 300 �88 sq. ft. GFA
1 space per 4 seats or 8 feet of benches �s-�aee
1 space per 400 sq ft. GFA
2�spaces per court or lane, 1 space per 300 �b9 sq. fr.
GFA l�us required parldnQ for other uses �r_„�
1 space per 4 seats '" . r°_ ?°^��1°u°°s
1 s ace er 400 �5 sq. ft. GFA
station, body 1 space per 400 �5 sq. ft. GFA plus 1 space per eae�Z
auto service stall
to auto sales 1� spaces per auto service stall
/�se� and rental 1 space per 400 sq. ft. GFA ., ` � fr
plus 1 space per 5 000 ��BB sq. ft. of outdoor sales
c , a L.'....,..,,,. �c.. ..«..,t
;:,r��,T,°�rr.;�.,. �::a 1 snace ver 2 employees
Limited Production Yrocessin ana
Limited production and processinQ
1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA
1 snace �er 1,500 sq. ft. GFA
Industrial Uses
Industrial, manufacturing
workshop
240 Sec. 63.208. Parking requirements for other uses.
1 space per 1 000 658 sq. ft. GFA or 1 space per 2,000
sq. ft. GFA if more than 50% of production floor space
is occupied by automated machinery
1 space per 575 sq fr. GFA
1 space per employee plus 1 for each 25 program
241 For those uses not specifically mentioned m section 63.207, the requirements for off-street parldng shall be in
242 accordance with a use which the zonin¢ administrator considers as similar in type pursuant to
243 Secfion 61.106, Similar use determinarion. When the zoninQ admmistrator deternunes that
244 there is no use listed in secrion 63207 which is similar to a petitiomng use, the zonin
245 administrator may determine the minimum number of parking spaces required for such use.
246 Sec. 63.209. Legal nonconforming parking deTiciency.
n. ,i..Y.[o
10-403
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
Nonresidential uses with a legal nonconfomvng parking deficiency may provide additional parking spaces at a time
..•�not associated with the expansion of the gross floor area or a change m use requiring addirional parldng, and
bank those additional spaces to be '� '�� "°�`°'"' ^�'' used to meet a future increase m the parkm; requirement
due to a chanee of use or addition. Such addirional parking must be legally added with an appro� ed srte plan and can
only be '�e� banked for three (3) years from site plan approval date for surface parking and for six (6) years from
site plan approval date for structured parkmg. Such parking will not be used to decrease the legal nonconfomung
parking deficiency for this period of time. If these parking spaces are not needed to meet a new parktn� requirement
associated with either an expansion of the gross floor area or a change in use requiring additional parkmg afrer three
(3) years for surface parking or after six (6) years for structured parking, the parking spaces will be used to decrease
any legal nonconfomung pazlting deficiency that may exist.
257 Sec 63 211. Shared vehicle parkinE•
258 Where one or more uassen¢er automobiles are provided and mana�ed on-srte bv an official car sharine orovider for
259 public use the minimum reauired off street parkin¢ as determined in Section 63 207(a) mav be reduced bv up to ten
260 ( 101 percent For the purpose of calculatin¢ the required parking reduction one (1) car shanne vehicle and
261 associated space mav be substituted for everv ten f I O) standard parkine soaces.
262 Sec 63 212 Preferential parkin� snaces.
263 For office industrial and inshtutional uses with more than twen (20) uarkina spaces up to ° �`�;-�a�r five
264 percent (5%1 of pazking suaces ''''°—,a,�'�a° mav be reseroed and desi¢nated for use bv anv of the followm�
265 types of vehicles:
F�T�
267
268
269
(a) Car pool or van pool vehicles
� Vehicles desiQnated as "US EPA Certified SmartWav� Elite" and displavin¢ an official "SmartWav Elite"
ic�n�
�c) Shaze car or vehicle as urovided under Section 63.211;
270 Prefer ential �arkinQ sroaces sk�all be placed in a convenient location proximate to the buildine entrance and ident
271 with approvriate siQnaee Preferential parldnQ spaces shall count towards the total reauired oarkma suaces.
272 Sec 63.213. Accessible parkinS spaces.
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
If �arkinc�aces are provided for self uarkine accessible spaces shall be urovided as required bv the Accessibilitv
Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities of the Americans with Disabiliries Act (ADA) m conformance w�th the table
below One (11 in everv eight (81 accessible suaces with a minimum of one (1) space shall be van accessible.
Required snaces need not be provided in the varticular lot but mav be provided in a different locarion if equivalent or
eater accessibilitv is ensured Each snace reserved for the exclusive use of uersons with mobihtv tmpairments shall
be desi�nated bv a siQn with the international wheelchair svmbol ParldnQ facilities for residential uses with fewex
than five (5) units are exem�t from this standard but shall provide accessible spaces unon request o£res�dents wrth
disabilities.
281
Total Parkine In Lot
1 to 25
26 to 50
51 to 75
Required Mmimum Number of Accessible Soaces
1
2
3
R2t 6.Y.ca
10-403
76 to 100
101 to 150
151 to 200
201 to 300
301 to 400
401 to 500
501 to 1,000
1,001 and over
4
7
8
9
2 nercent of tota]
20 plus 1 for each 100 over 1000
282 At facilities providin� medical cue and other services for persons with mobility impairments parkinQ sroaces shall
283 be orovided in accordance with secrion 63.206(c) except as follows:
284 (a) Outparient units and faciliries• ten (10) uercent of the total number of pazkinQ spaces urovided for each such
285 outpatient unit or facilitv shall be accessible to oersons with disabiliries
286 (bl Units and facilities that specialize in treahnent or services for persons with mobilitv impairments: twentv
287 (201 percent of the total number of parkin¢ snaces provided for each such unit or facilitv shall be accessible to
288 persons with disabilities.
289 If an existing parkinQ facilitv loses off-street parlanQ snaces as a result of moving the facility toward comnliance
290 with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act the nazkinQ facilitv shall be credited with the number of
291 pazkin¢ soaces lost wk�en calculating the total number of spaces nrovided for zonin¢ purnoses.
292 Sec. 63.214. Use of required narkina facilities.
293 Required parking spaces shall be available for the use of residents customers or emplovees of the use The storaQe
294 of inerchandise or trucks the repair of vehicles or the business of selling merchandise is prohibited in off-street
295 parkin� areas.
296 ARTICLE III. 63300. OFF-STREET PARKiNG FACILITY STANDARDS AND DESIGN
297 Sec. 63.302. Site plan review.
298 A site plan shall be submitted for review as outlined in section 61.402. In addition, the following shall be submitted:
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
(a) Ownership of all lots or pazcels intended for use as parldng;
(b) Indication of all sttuctures or faciliries to be served by the off-street parldng facility; a�
(c) All applications and plans for shared narldne facilities
�(ej Location and direction of drainage for stormwater runoff��
(e) Locarion and desi�n of stormwater manaaement feattues such as stormwater landscapin¢ rain 2ardens bio-
retention areas swales infiltration trenches sand filters and porous pavement includm¢ construction details
where applicable,
306 Applicat�ons for building permits that involve changing any parking space to another use shall include the following
307 informarion:
308
309
310
(1) All uses, structures or facilities served by such off-street parking spaces;
(2) Total number of parking spaces accessory to such uses, structures or facilities; and
(3) Number of parking spaces proposed to be changed to another use.
/�. [ v. � e
10-403
311 Sec. 63.303. Parking location, residential.
312 Residential off-street parking shall consist of an off-sfreet parking fac�lity or parking spaces as defined in this code.
313 Parking spaces for one- and two-family dwelling units shall be located on the same zomng lot that they are intended
314 to serve. Parking spaces for buildmgs contaming three (3) or more dwelling units shall be on the same zonin� lot,
315 part of a shared varkina arranaement pursuant to section 63.206(d), in a VP vehicular parking district, or m an
316 abutting zoning lot in the same or less restrictive zoning district.
317 When residential narkine is qrovided as part of a shared oarkinQ arrangement the shared parkin¢ facilitv shall be
318 clearly desi¢nated with an identificarion sien as described in section 64 401 and located witlun five hundred (500)
319 feet of the buildine it is intended to serve measured from the nearest point of the bmldm¢ to the nearest nomt of the
320 off-street parking facilitv.
321 Sec. 63.304. Parking location, nonresidential.
322 Off-street parking for other than residential use shall be either:
323 (a) On the same zoning lot as the building it is intended to serve; or
324 (b) In a VP vehicular parking distdct eF within the same or a less restnctive zoning d�strict as the principal use or
325 within a more restrictive zoninQ district providing the nrincioal use is also an allowed use in that zone. This
326 pazldng shall be located within three fimdred (300) feet of the building it is intended to serve, measured from the
327 nearest point of the building to the nearest point of the off-street parking lot; or
328 (c) Part of a shared parkinQ arrangementpursuant to section 63.206(d) or a shared commercial parking
329 arrangement m an insritutional lot pursuant to section 65.732. The shared uarldnQ facility shall be clearly
330 desiQnafed with an identificarion s�en as described in section 64 401( and located within fve hundred (500)
331 feet of the bmldine it is intended to serve meas�sed from the nearest noint of the buildin¢ to the nearest point oP
332 the off-street uarkine facilitv.
333 Sec. 63.305. Minimum layout dimeusions.
Pattern Parking Space Parking Space Maneuvering
Width Len th Lane Width
Parallel Parking 8 fr. 21 ft. 12 ft.
30 - 53 8 fr., 6 in. 18 ft. 12 ft.
54 - 74 8 ft., 6 in. 18 ft 15 ft.
75 - 90 9 ft. 18 ft. 2a �•
334 The front two (21 feet of the standard oarking soace mav be landscaped (instead of paved) with ground cover plants
335 which the vehicle can overhan¢ Landscaned portions of parking spaces count toward oarkine lot intenor
336 landscapin rectuirements and overall site landscapinQ requirements but do not count toward nenmeter landscapine
337 r�uirements.
338 INSET: ParkinQ Space Pattern [New figure below]
rJ. LY. � s
10-403
* ��� �
--�
� .�
�
� � �
� ._. �, ...�
�
339
340 Sec. 63.307. �aa�ic-x�ecl-aAccessible parking spaces and passenger loadin¢ zones.
w�-��a�����°a shall be desi ed in
341 Parlang spaces and oassenger loadin zp ones for persons with disabilities a��a �
342 accordance with the provisions of the Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities of the Americans with
343 Disabilities Act (ADA).
344 Sec. 63.308. Maneuvering lanes.
345 �
346 s�e#ues Access to all off-street pazkina facilities shall be provided by a maneuvering lane. ^�� �rr �,.....« ...,,-v:.,,.
347 °' °"'�" ''°^'""°a so that any vehicle leaving or entering the facility from or onto a public street shall be
348 traveling forwazd.- exce�t in the followine circumstances:
349
350
351
352
� Parkin¢ for one- and two-familv structures;
�b Parkina faciliries with seven (7) or fewer uarkin¢ spaces where the applicant can establish, in the review of a
site ulan auolication that allowance of atlev access would not create or aeeravate an unsafe cond�hon:and
� As nrovided in section 63309.
353 Drivewavs for one and two-familv dwellin¢s shall be a minimum of eiQht (8) feet in width.
354 Sec. 63.310. Entrances and exits.
355 ...
356 (fl Alley access from nonresidential property. Entrances and exits to and from all off-street parking facilities
357 which are located on land in nonresidenrial zoning districts and which abut residentially zoned land across an
358 alley shall be denied alley access except where the applicant can establish, in the review of a site plan
359 application, that allowance of alley access would not create or aggravate an unsafe condirion and one (1) or more
360 of the following candirions exist:
361
362
[GZ'i�3
(2) The location of existing structures on the property prohibits access to the street;
364 (3) A comprehensive plan or a neighborhood plan approved by the city council recommends that new off-
365 street pazking facilities be located m the rear of development sites or discourage additional curb cuts or
366 dnveways across sidewalks; or
367 (4) The number of parking spaces in the off-street parking facility is seven (7) or less.
368 If a new alley access is proposed which will serve eight (8) or more parking spaces, notice to adjacent property
369 owners and opportunity for them to comment shall be provided in the manner set forth in section 61.402(b)(5).
(1) Alternatives to alley access are unsafe due to traffic volumes, traffic speeds, proximity to an intersection,
steep slopes, a blind pedestrian crossing, or some other unsafe condition;
/.1. L Lla
10-403
370 Decisions to a ant or deny aliey access are subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of section 61.700.
371 For parkine facilities of seven (71 or fewer parkine soaces the spaces mav be directiv off of the alley and the
372 maneuverinQ lane mav mclude the allev.
373 Uses prohibited alley access elsewhere in the zoning code shall not be permitted alley access by the provisions
374 of this section.
375 (¢) Entrances and exits to and from a narkin facihtv shall be at least five (5) feet from existine or planned
376 boulevard trees.
377 Sec. 63.311. Wheel stops.
378 Provisions shall be made to prevent vehicles from
379 damaging or overhanging adjacent property,— or public rights-of-way, or damaein� required landscaping bv use of
380 such devices as curbs wheel stops or other protechve barriers A rivo (2 foot landscaped vehicle overhana is
381 allowed in accordance with Section 63 305 Minimum Lavout Dimensions.
382 Sec. 63.312. Setback.
383 Except as otherwise provided in section 66. 442`s) or section 66.431(b) ofF-sh'eet parking spaces shall not be within
384 a required front or side yard and shall be a mmimum of four (4) feet from any lot line. For housing on Irvine
385 Avenue, a guest parldng space may be provided on the driveway or elsewhere. If it �s provided elsewhere, a guest
386 parking area is exempt from setback requirements for parking spaces and it may be paved with gravel.
387 Sec. 63.314. Landscaping.
388 For any parking facility, other than �structured parking�ge, landscaping shall be provided to buffer the facility
389 from adjacent properties and from the public right-of-way; reduce the visual glare and heat effects of large expanses
390 of pavement; and provide areas for the retention and absorption of stormwater runof£ All required yazds and any
391 underdeveloped space shall be landscaped using materials such as trees, shrubs, sod, e�groundcover plants, or
392 storntwater landscapin¢ as reauired in Section 63 319 Stormwater nxnoff. and defined in Sechon 60.213.
393 Any landscaped area shall be planted and maintained in accordance with section 63.1 I5, Landscaping and plant
394 materials. All parldng and loading areas (including drive-through faciliries, outdoor auto sales and rental, pump
395 island service areas and stacking spaces) adjoining public streets or sidewalks shall provide:
396 (a) Perimeter landsca�e. A landscaped yard at least 4 feet wide along the public street or sidewalk. If vehicles
397 �ray-overhang the yard, an addirional three (3) feet of width shall be provided.
398 (b) Screenine landscape. In all districts except industrial districts, screening shall be provided consisting of a
399 masonry wall or decorative fence (not including chain link) supplemented with landscape material, forming a
400 screen a minimum of three (3) feet in height, a maximum of four and one-half (4 ll2) feet in height not including
401 trees, and not less than 50 percent opaque.
402 (c) Interior landscape. T aa� ' ; ' '' """'"""'"'° "r"""`�'' `F i"'� ""'" "''""
403 .
404 {?,{1) ` ` PazkinQ faciliries with more than twentv (201 narkine sroaces or 6 000 square feet of
405 pavin whichever is less shall provide fifteen (15) square feet of interior landscaped area for everv one hundred
406 (1001 square feet of vavine Interior landscaping mav not subsritute for uerimeter landscanin� but mav � om
407 perimeter landscapine as lon¢ as it extends at least four (4) feet into the narkin¢ area from the perimeter
408 landscape line.
+n� C.iC•t�
10-403
409 (d) Tree Plantin s A minimum of at least one (11 shade tree shall be planted for everv five (51 roarkine spaces in
410 a surf parkin¢ lot Trees shall be olanted wittun the perimeter landscapme and an reauired mtenor
411 landscaning Each tree shall be planted in landscaned areas or in the center of unoaved tree wells of at least three
412 (31 feet in soil depth and one hundred (100) square feet in area as measured from the mtenor edee of curbm¢ or
413 pa� with a minimutn dimension of four (4) feet wide A soil volume of 2reater than five hundred (�001 cubic
414 feet per tree �nth a minimum planrine dimension of eiaht (8) feet �s recommended £or imoroved tree health and
415 survrval.
416 � °
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
(el Internal Walkwa� ParkinQ facilities with more than 125 000 square feet of oaved area shall vrovide internal
walkwavs that divide the narking lot into smaller areas no ereater than 55 000 square feet Intemal walkwavs
shall be a minimum width of four (4) feet and should connect primarv buildines on the srte wrth access to
oarldna areas and the public sidewalk svstem on adiacent streets With the exceohon of walkwav/drivewav
crossines walkwavs should be separated from vehicle varkin¢ or maneuverinQ areas bv �rade, different pavine
material or landsca in¢ Intemal sidewalks shall meet the reauuements of auphcable accessibihtv standazds
and other desiQn and conshuction standazds adopted bv the Citv.
425 Sec. 63.315. Maintenance.
426 Al] areas of all off-street pazking facilities shall be kept in a good state of repair and free from refuse and debns.
427 Required uarkin� areas shall be cleared of snow within a reasonable time.
428 Sec. 63.318. Lighting.
429 All pazking facilities includine bicvcle parldng, shall be illuminated to a level to allow safe, secure access to the
430 pazldng facility and within it. Light fixtures on the top level of parldng structures shall be set back from the edge so
431 that they are not visible from the adjoining street. All parking facility illumination shall conform to the provisions of
432 section 63.116, exterior lighring.
433 Sec. 63.319. Stormwater runoff.
434
435
436
� Stormwater drainage from off�treet pazldng facilities of greater than one-quarter (1/4) of an acre of total
disturbed area into public sewers shall be controlled so that peak stormwater discharge rates from the site for all
storms up to and including the critical 100-year frequency will not exceed:
437 Q=1.64xA
438 where Q= the maximum acceptable discharge rate in cubic feet per second and A= the site area in acres.
439 Parking faciliries shall be designed in accordance with best mana¢ement oractices to comrolv with required local
440 and re ional water qualitv volume and rate control standards. These standards include but are not limited to
441 Chapter 52 Stormwater Runoff Parkine lots shall also abide bv operation and maintenance reeulation as
442 suecified bv local and regional authoriries. �-.' „ ° " °a°*°r � �r` ��a ° -f ^ ..«o_ ,.w..n �.o
443 r t , a a ,.�......._ ,,,,,,, ,,,,;,, o.,,-� � , ,._ .,.....,_., ,-...,,,:..,.�
444 �b) For sites with greater than one-auarter (1/41 of an acre of total disturbed area when the minimum reauired
445 p arkin as determined in Section 63 207(a) is constructed as surface parkinQ and is exceeded bv more than four
10-403
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
: .Z]
460
Section 2
461 That Legislative Code Chapter 63, Regulations of General Applicability, is hereby amended by adding a new
462 section, 63.122(a-e), to be entitled Travel demand management, and to read as follows:
463 Section 63.122. Travel demand manaEement.
464 (a) Pu�ose The Travel Demand Manaeement (TDl� provisions of this secrion are intended to imnlement
465 Comprehensive Plan nolicies callin�for balance and choice in transportahon ophons coordmahon between
466 trans�ortation outions and land use• maximizinQ the use of alternative travel modes such as ndeshannQ, nublic
467 transit bicycline and walkine� and offerina other choices such as staeeered work hours nreferenhal narlanQ
468 and telecommuting• in order to reduce motor vehicle travel and thus traffic con¢estion m the Crtv, enhance the
469 efficiencv of transuortation facihries and infrastructure improve air qualitv conserve enerQV and enhance
470 productivitv.
471 (b) Applicability This section auvlies to anv development or redevelopment includinQ phased construchon,
472 requirin¢ one hundred (100) or more pazkin¢ snaces and to anv chan¢e in use resultine in a parkm¢ increase of
473 twentv five (251 nercent or fiftv (501 parldnQ spaces whichever is less and rectuirin¢ one hundred (100) or more
474 parkinQ spaces based upon the Uazking requirements in sections 63.207 and 63208.
475 � Pro�ram requirements No buildin¢ or ¢radine permit shall issue for anv proiect subiect to Yhis sechon until
476 the zonine administrator has issued written findin s that a TDM ulan has been preoared wh�ch meets the
47� requirements of this section All develoument redeveloroment or chanee in use for which this section is
478 applicable shall be subiect to the followinQ requirements.
, •.
.,
.;
.;
.;
. ;.
(4) parkin¢ spaces the followine provisions for stormwater mana2ement shall aoplv unless otherwise reeulated
in an overlav zonin¢ dishict:
(1) Thirty (30) square feet of stormwater landscaroing shali be provided per parkina space over the minimum
required uarking Stormwater landsca�n� shall be desiened to include an under dram svstem if stormwater
landscapin¢ is located in areas with h�olo2ic soil tvpe C(Sandv clav loam).
�2) Stormwater landscapin shall not be required if located in azeas with hydrolo¢ic soil tvoe D(Clav);
groundwater or bedrock within 3 feet of the bottom of the infiltrahon area' neazbv wells or urilrties; or
potential contamination.
(c) For narkine facilities with greater than one (1) acre of total disturbed area other local state and regional
regulations also applv.
(1) Plan submission and approva[ The TDM ulan must be submitted and approved as roart of srte plan
review under the urovision of section 61.402.
(2) Plan content The TDM rolan mav be ureroared by a qualified traffic en¢ineer or the owner of the
proroertv where the nroiect will take olace. Assistance with writin¢ a TDM olan mav also be available
throu¢h the Citv's desienated Transnortation ManaQement Oreanization if such an orgamzarion is
desi2nated and available All TDM plans shall contain at a minimum the following:
n . � s.....
10-403
485 a A descrirotion of the methodoloeY used to create the TDM plan including but not limited to forecasts
486 of overall and oeak period emolovment customers residents tnps �enerated. mode sphts, uarkina
487 demand and sunplv and transit demand and supnlv:
488 b A descriprion of the TDM plan obtecrives and ctuantifiable �oals includinQ neak hour vehicle tdp
489 reducrion ¢oals;
490 c A descrin of TDM strateQies and implementation actions such as but not hmited to: employer
491 subsidized transit passes• on site transit facilities preferenrial parlan2 for nde shann2, share car, and
492 altemarive fuel vehicles on site bicvcle and oedestnan facil�t�es� and telecommutma and flex scheduli�
493 opportunities:
494 d A descriotion of TDM evaluation measurements urocesses and benchmarks that will be used to
495 detemune the effectiveness of the TDM strateeies used and vro�ress towards achievmQ the TDM plan's
496 goals;
..
..;
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
(11 Results of follow uu survevs in a format aporoved bv the zoninQ administrator to determine the proeress
toward achievin¢ the ¢oals set forth in the approved TDM nlan•
(21 Documentation of annual exnenditures made to implement the strateQies listed in the TDM ulan; and
(3) Evidence of implementarion of TDM str ateQies listed in the TDM plan on a schedule that would
reasonablv allow achievement of TDM eoals bv Yhe tar¢et comnhance date.
519 (el Final ptan evaluation release forfeiture oFsecurit aflreement If the develooer uronertv owner. or their
520 successors or assiens demonstrates a Qood faith effort to achieve the goals set forth m the anoroved TDM ulan
521 bv the TDM ulan comnliance date the TDM securitv aQreement shall be released bv the zomne admmistrator
e Proposed total expenditures to imulement the TDM olan for at least two (21 vears followin¢ the
issuance of the certificate of occupancv;
f A statement that ttie TDM nlan imulementation date shall be six (� months after the cerhficate of
occunancvisissued:and
A statement that the TDM ulan final comnliance date shall be two (2) calendaz veais after the inirial
TDM plan implementation date.
(3) Securitv aQrreement To ensure TDM olan implementation the prouertv owner/develouer shall file a
securitv aereement in the form of an irrevocable letter of credrt a performance bond or cash escrow equal to
the develoumenYs two vear TDM plan budeet snecified in sechon 63 122(c)(21e Such secuntv aQreement
shall be filed with the zoning administrator within one (I) vear of site rolan avvroval.
(d) Compliance The develoqer propertv owner or their successors and assiQns must demonsffate a�ood faith
effort to meet the goals and implementation strate¢ies set forth in the approved TDM rolan bv submittmg to the
zonine administrator an Annual Status Re�ort within thirt�(30) davs of the one vear and two vear anmversary
dates of the issuance of the certificate of occuuancv for the proiect The zomne admmistrator wittun sixtv (601
d�s of recei�t of the Annual Status Re�ort will review the Renort to deternune if a¢ood faith effort has been
made to imulement the eoals described in the TDM olan or that the Qoals descnbed m the TDM olan have been
met The Annual Status Reuort must at a minimum include written documentation of the followinQ:
n . G Y.i J
ib'L�-f!k]
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
Section 3
535 That I,egislative Code Chapter 60, General Provisions and Definitions, pertaining to off-street parking
536 requirements, faciliry standards and design, is hereby amended as follows:
537 Secrion 60.207. F.
538 Floor area, gross (for the purposes of computing parking). The sum of the horizontal areas of each floor of a
539 building, measured from the exterior faces of the exterior wa11s or &om the centerline of walls separating two (2)
540 buildings. The gross floor azea measurement is exclusive of areas of unfinished basements, unfinished ce]lars,
541 unfinished attics, attached garages, space used for off-street parking or loading, breezeways, enclosed and
542 unenclosed porches and accessory structures. r `' '' r'"'"°"��" �`° ^^""�°�
543 •
544 '
545 � '
546 ,
547 •
548 °
549 �
550 l F .., ...o
551 Section 60.213. L.
552 Landsca�ine stormwater Landscapina that integrates stormwater manaeement into the aesthet amenities of
553 landscap Storxnwater landscapinQ shall include recessed landsca axeas for water runoff collechon, eraded
554 areas that direct runofF flows to landscaued areas desiened for water collectson landscaroed azeas desiened for
555 tem orarv oondinQ after storms and use of hiQhlv nermeable soils conducive to water dramaee.
556 Section 60.214. M.
557 Multiuse retail center. A single, unified development on one (1) zoning lot fhat provides commercial space to a
558 variety of retail uses and has at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of gross floor deasak�area.
559 Section 60.217. P.
560 Parkin¢ structured Off street parking that is placed within a ramp deck under¢round enclosed buildine, or
561 tuck-under �araee.
within ten (101 business davs of the administrator's determination Failure to complv with the provisions of an
� roved TDM olan constitutes a violation of this Code If the develoner oropertv owner. or their successors or
assions fail to submit a rimelv Annual Status Report that demonstrates a eood fatth effort to achieve the goals set
forth in the aporoved TDM olan the zonine administrator mav hold the TDM plan's secuntv aereement for an
additional twelve (121 month period at the end of which period an additional Annual Status Report must be
submitted At the end of the addirional period the wnine administrator shall determine whether the there has
been a�ood farth effort to reach the Qoals of the TDM plan The TDM secunrv asreement will erther be
released or forfeited based uroon the adminisuator's determination If the zomn¢ adrsumstrator determmes on the
basis of the Annual Status Reports that the failure to imulement the strateeies set forth m the TDM pian or
otherwise achieve the'i`DM plan goals is attributable to inexcusable ne¢lect on the part of the develoroer,
�onertv owner or their its successors and assiens the financial euarantee shall be immed�atelv forfe�ted to the
C�
✓J_. L-C.IO
10-403
562 Pervious pavement Pavina material that allows water to flow thouQh it to minimize stormwater runoff.
563 Section 60.219. R.
564 Runoff Ramfall snowmelt or irrioation water flowina over the eround surface.
�T�"r
566
Section 4
567 That Legislative Code Chapter 63, Regulations of General Applicabiliry, is hereby amended as follows:
568 Section 63.115. Landscaping and plant materials.
569 (a) Landscape plans shall be based on a comprehensive site and soil inventory, the surrounding
570 landscape, sustainability issues and maintenance requirements. The following guidelines shall be used
571 in developing landscape plans.
572
573 (3) Stormwater treahnent shall employ best management practices and shall be integrated into the landscape
574 design to the extent possible. When stormwater mana¢ement is inteQrated into landscaoine the landscaroing
575 shall be referred to as stormwater landscaninQ.
576
577
Section 5
578 That Legislative Code Chapter 65, Land Use Definitions and Development Standards, is hereby amended as
579 follows:
580 Section 65.142. Live-work unit.
581 (d) ^'�`^�ae eOff-sireet parldng spaces shall be , located to the zear of the unit,
582 or undergxound/enclosed.
583 Section 65.513. Drive-through sales and services, primary and accessory.
584 (e) Stackine suaces shall be orovided for each drive-throuQh lane Banks credit unions and fast-food
585 restaurants shall nrovide a minimum of four (41 stacldnQ soaces per drive-through lane Stacldng spaces for all
586 other uses shall be deternuned bv the zonin� administrator.
587 Additional condition in the TN2 traditional neighborhood district:
588 (fe) There shall be no more than one (1) drive-through lane and no more than two (2) drive-through service
589 windows, with Yhe exception of banks, which may have no more than three (3) drive-through lanes.
590 Section 65.615. Restaurant, fast-food.
591
fil�LiiX3
592
593
594
(�) Impact on adjoimng property by use of the site may not result in the following:
595 Sec. 65.707. Car wash.
596 Standards and conditions:
597
598
599
.11
Section 6
601 That Legislative Code Chapter 66, Zoning District Uses, Densiry and Dimensional Standards, pertaining to off-
602 street parking requirements, facility standards and design, is hereby amended as follows:
603 Section 66.341. Required conditions in TNl — TN2 traditional neighborhood districts.
G11T�
605
Y. _ _ _
�._ . • - -- - --- - -- -• - - • ,. •-
.1. - -
.1 - - - - -
.1: - - -
.1• - - - -
. 1 - - -
611 (��For properties within one-quarter (1/4) mile of a h'ansit street, as defined, the minimum amount of
612 required off-street parking for residential uses �ecified in section 63 207 Parking requirements bv use, may
613 be reduced to one (1) parking space per dwelling unit. This provision applies to principal and secondary
614 dwelling units and units in mixed-use buildings, but not to live-work units.
615 Section 66.342. Parking requirements in the TN3 traditional neighborhood district.
616 (a) Amount ofparking.
617 (�}The minimum amount of required parking for residential uses sroecified in Section 63 207, Parkino-
t, n �. .w:_a i � ia� „v
618 requirements bv use mav be reduced to one (11 varkin¢ space per dwellinQ unit. s���.._� ,-. -, --
619 "_ ___ ,°��"�'"" ^''^^��_'� On-street parking located along the frontage of a property may be used
620 to meet parking requirements for that properiy.
621 i�� �-t, f fF i � ii nm F'-
,
622 . , b ,
623 �, a �. ,a ,. «.. ,.. .,.,,._ m
a.
�d A mimmum of four (4) staclang spaces oer washing lane and two (2) stackine spaces per self-service stall
shall be �ovided.
(a) Amount ofparking.
N. i �i�_
10-403
624 Section 66.442. Parking requirements in the BC community business (converted) district.
625 In the BC community business (converted) district, when existing buildings are converted from residential to
626 business use, when exisring buildings are enlarged, and when new buildings are erected, off-street parinn� shall be
627 provided as follows
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
i � o �a ' i . n ,...a ,...e w,.ir n t rn �,� _ a...on:..,...,,:.
S - c� �nn w' w ,. «�.e c. ,,,t�o �r t,. o
�ae) Off-street parking spaces shall not be located within a front yard and must be set back at least two (2) feet
from a side lot line.
`b�) Off-street parldng facihries on lots without principal buildings shall provide principal access from the
street.
635 Section 66.704. Required conditions.
636 ...
637 (� Applications for VP district rezoning shall include a site plan which conforms to �azkinQ requirements as set
638 forth in section 63.200 and all standards set forth in section 63300.
639 .
640 ., ,. ,, �., , e �.« ,.s�.,,,;.,,.o,,, ..�
641
642
643
�,.
Section 7
645 That I.egislative Code Chapter 67, Overlay Districts, pertaining to off-street paiking cequirements, facility
646 standards and design, is hereby amended as follows:
647 Section 67.402. WB White Bear Avenue overlay district
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
(g) VP vehiculaz parldng districts shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the requuements of
sechon 63.200 and section 63300.
(e) Accessory parking Pegulations. The following accessory parldng regularions shall apply to the WB White
Bear Avenue overlay district:
(2) Quantity: Parkmg shall be provided as the zoning requires for each use, except as follows:
c. The development of shared pazking is allowed as regulated in sections 65.732 and 63.206(d)(gj.
� ,,., „ a , a ..,..�: :.....o :,. ., �,,.,.-oa „ , ,.... ,._,.. ;,, e,, .w...
,..:,... c2 �nti..�
m�ccczvrr�onz°v�b7.
/�� (�. SC. L 9
10-403
656 ARTICLE VII. 67.700. CC CENTRAL CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT
657 Section 67.707. Parking regulations.
658 The follo�ing parlting regulations shall pertain to the CC Central Corridor Overlay Distnct:
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
...
..
(a) Aniount of parking. Nonresidential uses: the minimum amount of required off-street parkine shall be as
specified in Secrion 63 207 Parkine requirements by use T'he maximum amount of off-street parkine shall be
one hundred and forty (1401 percent of the parkin¢ requirement in section 63 207 and is subiect to the provisions
of secrion 63 207(cl and 63207(dl. ' `-`--` -'�'''-° "' "'"' °'"°t"'° ^ �c �.�".
�
Fi3 �. a a F �, aa ..i _,._v:
a a •'��-�� °��='-'�-�-` Residential uses: there shall be no minimum parking requirement for
�r �, . b• �
residential uses. A maximum of one (1) space per unit may be provided. The maximum may be exceeded within
the provisions of section 63.207(cl. `'' '''' ' , �'"� ":'^^°° " `'"."''.'°''�
Section 8
670 This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage, approval, and publication.
Requested by Department of:
Adoption Certified by Co�cil Secretary
BY� � �%J�s�/d
Approvedb✓� Date �0/LZ/?�D�o
Mayor: %
�
Form Appro d by City Attomey
By: ' i�dG-� ��ivvrV-- 6- 8� ! o
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
PUBLISHED
JUI� 2 2101�
Adoptedby Date �/
Council:
10-403
Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
PE _ Planning & Economic
Contact Person & Phone:
Merritt Clapo-Smith
266-6547
Must Be on Councii Agenda by (Date):
21-P.PR-10
Doc. 7ype: ORDINANCE
E-0ocument Required: Y
DocumeM Contact: Merritt Clapp-Smitr
Contad Phone: 266-6547 I I
Totai # of Signature Pages _� (Clip Ail Locations for Signature)
Approve ordinance amending off-street pazking requirements and design standards. Public hearing to be held 5/4/2010.
RecommendaGons: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Mswer the Following Questions:
�_ Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city empioyee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet.
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
In May 2009, the Saint Paul Planning Commission initiated a study of the CiTySs off-street parldng reguuements and design
standazds, requesting a comprehensive review and proposed revisions to sunplify the code and bring it into line with pazking demand,
policies in the new Comprehensive Plan, and best practices in off-street pazking requirements from azound the country. After
extensive reseazch, public review and comment, a comprehensive set of code amendments to the City`,as pazking requirements have
been recommended by the Planning Commission for consideration by the City Council.
Advantages If Approved:
The city would have significanfly revised off-street pazking requirements and design standards that aze simpler, better reflect pazldng
demand, facilitate commercial corridor redevelopment, and advance City policies regarding land use, transportation and the
environment.
Disadvantages If Appreved:
None.
24�RZa,a I Green Sheet NO:. 3104Q37
�
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Disadvanqges If Not Approved:
The current parking code standards, which aze complicated, oversupply pazking, and discourage building reuse and some types of
development, would remain.
Total Amount of $0.00
Transaction:
Funding Source:
GosNRevenue Budgeted: N
Activity Number:
_ �,.
Financia l Information:
(Expiain)
8'BFiPL 4 � L��o
1 � i .
March 24, 2010 12:19 PM Page 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SAIN"I' PAUL
Chnstopher B. Co[eman, Mayor
March z3, zoio
10-403
Q
Kath� Donne!!y-Cohen, Chan
25 West Fourth Sheet
Safrst Paul, .N�i `55102
Ze[ephone: 6.iI-266-6700
Facsimde: 6�1-228-3220
Mayor Coleman, Council President Lantry and Members ofthe City Council
Rooms 300, 3io, 3zo City Hall
z5 West Kellogg Boulevard
Saint Paul, MN 55ioz
RE: Planning Commission Recommendation on Off-Street Parking Zoning Amendments
Dear Mayor Coleman, Council President Lantry and Members ofthe City Council:
In May 2009, the Planning Commission initiated a study of Saint Paul's off-street parking
requirements and design standards—Article II 63.200. Parking Requirements and Article
III 63300. Off-Street Parking Facility Standards and Design.
The Planning Commission felt that a comprehensive study of the City's off-street parking
requirements was prudent and timely in light of the following factors:
1. Over the years, pieces of the parking code have been amended to respond to
specific events or issues; an incremental approach that has slowly increased the
complexity and internal inconsistency of the requirements. A comprehensive
review is the only way to evaluate and address complexity and inconsistency.
2. Saint Paul recentiy adopted a new Transportation Chapter of the Saint Paul
Comprehensive Plan. This chapter includes a number of recommendations for
revising the City's parking requirements.
3. Many cities have been revising their parking requirements in the past few years
to respond to changing assumptions about urban parking needs and
environmental and land use policy. Minneapolis, for example, adopted a new
parking code in early 2009.
During the summer and early fall of 2009, PED and DSI staff prepared a comprehensive
set of proposed revisions to the Cit�s ofF-street parking requirements after extensive
review of Saint Paul's current parking code, comparison to other cities' codes and
national best practices, and in response to policy changes adopted in the Saint Paul
Comprehensive Plan.
10-403
In early October, the proposed revisions were released for public review and comment,
following which PED staff conducted 14 public and stakeholder meetings and utilized
the Cit�s website to provide information and solicit feedback.
Public Meetin�s
• West 7th Community Center
• Como Pavilion
• Dayton's Bluff Recreation Center
Stakeholder Meetinss
• Chamber of Commerce
• Port Authority
• Saint Paul Business Review Council
• Metro Independent Business
Alliance
Stakeholder Meetin�s (continued)
• Metropolitan Consortium of
Commurtity Developers
• Smart Trips Board of Directors
• Distrid Councils Executive Directors
• Payne-Arcade Business Assc and
Distrid 5
• Grend Avenue Business Assc and
District 16
• Highland Business Association
• College and university
representatives
Overall feedback was very positive on the proposed amendments to the City's off-street
parking requirements and design standards. In general, people understand and support
the major objectives of the revisions:
• Consolidating requirements to encourage reuse and redevelopment
• Reducing parking requirements to match average demand
•" Enhancing parking lot design to increase environmental stewardship and reduce
blight
• Encouraging efficient land use and supporting multi-modal transportation
Based on the over 150 comments and questions received, staff fine tuned the proposed
code amendments in preparation for formal public hearing at the Planning Commission.
On January 22, 2010 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
off-street parking code amendments. Two organizations testified at the hearing and
nine comment letters were received. The public hearing comments were generally
supportive ofthe proposed parking code revisions, with a few exceptions and with some
specific suggestions for additional revisions to the code.
Following the hearing, the Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning
Commission met on February 2" 16 and March 9 and discussed the comments. In
Iight of the testimony and follow up requested of staff, the Committee �ecommended a
few revisions to the proposed code amendments. On March 12, 2010, the Planning
Commission unanimously approved the draft off-street parking code amendments as
recommended by the committee and adopted a resolution forwarding them to City
Council for consideration.
Highlights of the proposed zoning amendments for off-street parking are described
below:
10-403
• Consolidate and reduce minimum off-street parking requirements for most
office, retail and restaurant uses
• Add a stepped, minimum off-street parking requirement for multi-family
dwelling units, with minimum parking spaces based on size of the unit
• Establish off-street parking maximums of 300%of the minimum for food and
beverage uses and 170% for all other uses unless parking is structured or a
Conditional Use Permit is approved
• Simplify the parameters for shared parking and expand its applicability
• Modestly increase interior landscape, tree planting and stormwater
management requirements, particulariy for medium and large lots
• Create a Travel Demand Management provision for sites with more than 100
parking spaces
Additional information about the proposed off-street parking code amendments can be
found at http://www.stpaul.�ov/offstreetparkin�studv .
Parking requirements have a large impact on development decisions in our city. It is
prudent to amend requirements to make them easy to understand and implement, to
represent today's parking needs, to facilitate building reuse and infill development on
our commercial corridors, and to reflect Saint Paul's priorities and policies for land use,
transportation, livability, and the environment.
Sincerely,
�✓�� - �-✓.
Kathi Donnelly-Cohen
Chair
c Mary Erickson, Council Research
Cecile Bedor, PED
Donna Drummond, PED
Allan Torstenson, PED
Merritt Clapp-Smith, PED
Tia Anderson, PED
Peter Warner, CAO
Wendy Lane, DSI
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
10-403
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number ,o-2s
d ate March 12, 2010
Off-Street Parking Requirements and Design Standards Zoning Amendments
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission passed a resolution on May 22, 2009, file number #09-33,
initiating a zoning study to consider amendments to the zoning code regazding off=street pazking
facility standazds and design; and
WF�REAS, in October and November 2009, a series of public and stakeholder meerings were
conducted to elicit comments on draft code amendments to off-street pazking requirements and these
comments were considered in making addifional revisions to the draft code amendments; and
WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission, on December 18, 2009, released draft off=street parking
requirement and design standards zoning amendments for formal public review, and set a public
hearing for January 22, 2010; and
WIIEREAS, a public hearing notice was published pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 462357, Subd.
3, and sent to the early notificafion list and other interested parties; and
WF�REAS, a public hearing on the proposed off-street pazleing requirement and design standards
zo nino amendments was conducted by the Planning Commission on January 22,-2010, at which all
persons present were allowed to testify, and
WHEREAS, two people spoke at the hearing and nine letters of comment were submitted; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing comments were generally supportive of the proposed pazking code
revisions, with a couple of exceptions from residents who deal with local pazking issues, and with
some specific suggestions far revisions to the code in sections related to parking ma�cimums,
landscaping, travel demand management, and requirements for auto, currency exchange and pawn
shop uses; and
WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission referred the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive
Planuing Committee for consideration of the public testimony and possible revisions to the proposed
code amendments, and a recommendation; and
WFIEREAS, the Comprehensive Plaunuig Committee discussed the comments and proposed code
amendments on February 2"� 16�' and Mazch 9�`, 2010, and forwarded its recommendation to the
Planning Commission; and
WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the public testimony and the recommendations of
the Comprehensive Planning Committee;
moved by Commers
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
10-403
Pile #
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 2 of 2
NOW, "IT�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, under the provisions of § 61.801 of the Zoning Code and
piassuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes § 462.357, that the Plann;n� Commission
recommends to the City Coimcil amendments to Chapters 60, 63, 65, 66 and 67 of the Zoning Code
per the attached "Proposed Off-Street Pazking Code tlmendments" dated 3/12/2010.
BE IT FUR1'I�R RESOLVFD, tUat the Plann.ing Commission clirects the Plauning Administrator to
forwazd the Off-S�eet Pazking Requirements and I3esign Standazds Zoning Amendments,
appropriate documentation, and this resolution to the Mayor and City Council for theu review and
adoption.
10-403
DRAF"T Meeting Minutes — to be anproved at March 26�' Planning Commission 1Yleetin�
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
Minntes March 12, 2010
A meering of the Planning Commission ofthe City of Saint Paul was held Friday, Mazch 12, 2010, at
830 a.m. in Room 41 of the Conference Center of Ciry Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
Mmes. Doanelly-Cohen, Merrigan, Smitten, Thao, Wencl; and
Messrs. Akon, Connolly, Commers, Fernandez, Gelgelu, Goodlow, Kramer, Nelson,
Schertler, Spaulding, Wazd, and Wickiser.
Mmes. *Halverson, *Porter, *Young, and Mr. *Margulies
*Excused
Also Present: Donna Drummond, Planning Director; Lorrie Louder, St. Paul Port AuthoriTy, Lucy
Thompson, Allan Torstenson, Patricia James, Merritt Clapp-Smith, Kate Reilly, Tia
Anderson, Emily Goodman, and Sonja Butler, Department of Planning and Economic
Development staff.
I. Approval of minutes February 19, 2010.
MOT'ION: Commissioner Wencl moved approval of the minutes of February 19, 20I0.
Cnmsnissioner Wmd seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimousZy on a voiee vote.
Q
Chair's Announcements
Chair ponnelly-Cohen announced that the Steering Committee met just prior to the meeting and
discussed establishing the new Transportation Committee. The Steering Committee is working on
Planning Commission by-law changes to incorporate the new committee, and these will be presented for
consideration at the first meeting in Aprii. There will be posting on the Mayor's web site advertising for
applicants for the committee. As specified by ihe City Council resoluflon, there will be up to eighY
members from the community on the committee and four planning commissioners. Commissioners
interested in being on this committee should let Chair ponnelly-Cohen Imow. She also asked
commissioners to encoutage people with sh�ong backgrounds in transportation to apply.
III. Planning Director's Announcements
Donna Drummond announced that at the commissioners' places was a flyer about a series of four
workshops related to transit oriented development, transit oriented dishicts and walkable communities.
These events aze free, but registralion is required.
The conshuction schedule was announced for the LRT this week. What is called the Civil East
package, which is basically everything ia Saint Paul, was released for bids. The schedule indicates that
heavy construcrion �211 occur in 2011 in the stretch from Yhe Minneapolis border to Hamline Avenue in
10-403
DRAFT Meetine Minutes — to be approved at March 26"' Plannin� Commission Meeting
2011 and from Hamline to the Capitol azea in 2012. Work will sfart in the azea right azound the Capitol
this year. They will fmish up Fourth Street this yeaz and-Cedar Street in 2011.
At City Co�mcil on February 24`� the Comprehensive Plan had fiaal adopYion and now the City has a
legally valid and up-to-date Comprehensive Plan tl�at can be referred to.
On Mazch 3" at City Council there were a numtzer of appeals. The appeal of David Brooks of a
decision by the Plaaning Commission to revoke site ptau approval at 2057 La�sel Avenue was denied.
The appeal of Neil McMahon of a decision by the Planning Commission approving re-establishment of
non-coaforming use at 1784 Lafond Avenue was granted.
The appeal of Brad RiYmann/Pawn America of the Planning Commission decision denying a
condirional use permit and vanance at 334 University Avenue Fast was cvithdrawn.
N. Zoning Commitfee
SITE PLAN REV�W —List of current applications. (Tom Beach, 651/26C�9086)
Five items will come before the staff Site Plan Review Committee on Mazch 16, 2010. They are:
Wheelock Eady Education CenYer drop off lane, pavement replacement and landscape resforation at
1521 Edgerton Street; Harding High School uack and field renovation at 1540 East 6'� Street;
Hamemick Hill new Showroom building at 1396 North Rice Sh�eet; Adams School parking lot
expansion at 615 Chatsworth; and Central Comdor Ligirt Rail-related utility building projects.
BUSINF.SS
Minor TeXt Amendments for Chapters 60 and 61 of the Zoning Code — Adoption of resolution
recommending approval to Mayor and City Coimcil. .
(Knte Rei11y, 651/266-6618)
Commissioner Kramer said that they made some atterations to the staff recommendation, which were
enclosed 'm the commissioner's packets.
MOTION: Commirsioner %rmner moved on behalf nf the Zoning Committee to recoinmerid that the
Minor TextAmendmenis for Chapters 60 and 61 of ihe Zoning Code be adopted by the Mayor arzd
City CouncrZ Co�nmis.rioner Nelson seconded the motion. The motion carried unmrimously on a
voiee votz �
Comm•issioner Kramer announcsd the items on the agenda for the next Zoning Committee meeting on
Thursday, Mazch 18, 2010.
V. Comprehensive Planning Commirtee
Off-Street Pazking Requirements and Desi� Standards — Adoption of resolution recommending
approval to Mayor and City Council. (Merrin Clapp-Smith, 651/266-6547)
10-403
DRAFT Meetin� Minutes — to be aDProved at March 26 Plannine Commission Meetin�
Memtt Clapp-Smith, PED staff, outlined topics reviewed by the Comprebensive Planning Committee
since the Jannary 22° public hearina on the proposed code amendments to Saint Paul's off-sh-eet
pazking requirements.
For auto and pawn shops there was some public testunony suggestina that these uses had uniqnely high
parking demand and should not be included in the 1 space per 400 gross squaze feet with other retail and
office uses. At the request of the Comprehensive Planning Committee, staff did visual parking surveys
of these types of businesses and it was determined that in both cases the proposed parking requirements
aze adequate to meet the demand, so the committee recommended that they retain the proposed code
amendments for Yhese uses.
There were four sets of public comments on the proposed maximum parking requirement, two saying
they were too strict and two saying that they were not strict enough. Staff used pazking utilization
studies from various sites and uses around the city to propose minimum and mazimum levels of parking
that would be reasonable to accommodate the low and high ends of parking demand for businesses. The
code amendments include a conditional use permit process for people who have uniquely high parking
demand to apply to build pazking above the masimum. The Comprehensive Planning Committee
recommended retaining the pazking max;mum at 300% of minimum for eating establishments and 170%
of minimum for all other uses; however, the committee felt that a small lot should not have to go
through the conditional use permit process if it was only adding a few more spaces and exceeding the
masimum and therefore recommended increasing the threshold above which maximum pazking applies
from a 10 space parking lot to a 15 space parking lot.
Commissioner Schertler asked about the maYimum limit and wondered if it would prolribit things like
Super TargeYs overflow, reserve parking lot along University Avenue. Ms. Clapp-Smith said that they
wouldn't run into the masimum if the reserve lot was applied for as a special parking use, not just
accessory to the building. In this case, the pazking lot would be designated for leasing or shared use by
others in the area and be actively used for pazking, as opposed to sitting vacant. Creating unneeded
parking that sits vacant simply for ]and banking purposes is not something the City should continue to
allow if it wishes to use land more efficiently and reduce blight and environntental impacts created by
excess pazking. If someone wants to create pazking that goes above the maYimum, they can go through
the conditional use permit process and demonstrate why the excess parking is needed.
In regazd to preferential parking spaces, the committee revised the proposal that parking lots be reQUired
to provide 1 in 20 parking spaces or up to 5% of parking spaces for energy efficient cars, car pooling
and van pooling in the lots, to allowine the designation of up to 5% of spaces for preferentiat parking.
Commissioner Smitten commented that there should be stronger encouraaement or incentives for people
to provide parking for car pooling and the like. Ms. Clapp-Smith said that this was the intent of the
originally proposed requirement to designate 1 out of 5 or 5% of spaces for special parking, but the
committee was concerned that designated spaces may not be appropriate for all uses, may not get used,
and would be hard to enforce. Therefore, they preferred allowing it, so that those places where it
seemed appropriate and enforceable could do it.
A landscape azchitect submitted ea�tensive comments that questioned the proposed minimum landscape
dimensions for h�ee planting. In response, the CiTy Forester was consulted for his opinion. He
responded with two memos which recommended a much lazger planting azea for trees than currently
required or proposed. Aowever, the ideal size seemed to the committee to be much lazger than could be
10-403
�
��
DRAI+�' Meetin2 Minutes — to be apnroved at March 26�' Plannine Commission NIeeting �
�
i�
realistically accommodated in most parking lots and therefore they proposed a minimum tree pianting �
dimension of 100 sq ft, compazed to the current minimum of 18 square feet. Commissioner Smitten
asked if it was wise to adogt a hee planting area smaller fhan recommended by the City Forester. F
CIapp-Smith responded that tlie lazger, ideal size was intended for healthy growth of lazge shade trees �
and that perhaps a more realistic tree size for garlang lots with limited space would be medium and F
small trees. �
There was one public comment objecting to the proposed Travel Demand Management ("I'D11�
requirement for lazge pazking lots. The committee felt comforfable with a TDM requirement, but had
guestioned the proposed lana age. The City Attomey's office reviewed several TDM ordinances from
other cities and discussed concerns and issues with the staff. As a result, the proposed TDM language
was substantially revised, not altering the content, but making if cleaz and enforceable.
Commissioaer Smitten asked if There was an incentive or allowance for ysing pervious pavement in .
pazking lots, as a way to reduce storm water runoff. Ms. Clapp-Smith said that pervious pavement is
allowed by the zoning code, but was not proposed as a requirement in these code amendments because it
is only appropriate with certam soil conditions. PED staff had discussed the idea with staff from the
Department of Safety and Inspections (DSn and they suggested that the matter be given fuller
discussion in a comprehensive review and study of padang lot design standards wtuch they plan to
undectake in a yeaz or so to consider storm water ]andscaping and overall requirements.
Commissioner Nelson noted that in his recollection, applicants have asked for a vatiance to exceed the
maximum pazlang based on current parking standards m a mmmber of the T'N zoned properties, where
maYimums already apply, such as Trader Joe's and new G�b Foods_ He thinks there are going to be a
lot more requested variances wit$ a Cifywide max;m�. �other concern of his is the proposed
minimum for eating places at 1 space per 400 sq ft He said that the higher proposed mazimum for
these uses recognizes that restaurants have a higher pazlang demand than ietail and office. He hoped
that the pmposed requfrement for eating places would come down to 1 per 200 ar somewhere in
between that and 1 per 400 as proposect, because everyone lmows restaurants aze more intensive. If the
reqairement is the same as all retail spaces, then it suddenly allows restau[ants to move into these
spaces. Ae has real concerns tl�at this will create negative consequences across the city. Commissioner
Nelson agrees that we do not want vast azeas of empty pazkina, but different parts of the ciTy have
different pazking issues and yet we aze proposing a one size fits all standazd. He sees the restaisants as
a serious issue.
Ms. Clapg-Smith replied that it is clear that eating places demaud more parking on average than'retail
and office users and I space per 400 square feet might not be enough pazldng for these places if they are
very busy. The trade off is that as long as eating places baue a lugher pazldng reqnirement than retail
and office, as they do now, then when a commercial space gces aut of business and wants to reopen as a
coffee shop or restanzant, it can only do so if: (a) there is room to add pazking spaces, or {b) they get a
variance. Variances for eating p]aces frequently aze supported m the community because people like
these places to move in. In the City today, commercial corridors that are struggling want more eating
places. IYs a policy trade offand not an easy decision; iYs going to have an impact either way.
4
10-403
DRAFT Meetin6 Minutes — to be approved at March 26 Plannin� Commission D'Ieet
MOTION: Commissioner Commers moved on 6ehalf of the Cn»zprehensive Planning Committee to
recommend that the Parking Off-Street Requiremenu and Design Standards be adopted by the Mayor
and City CnuxciL The motion carried unanimousZy on a voice vote -
VI. Neighborhood Planning Committee
District del Sol Zonin¢ Study — Recommendation to release draft for public review and schedule a
public hearing on Apri123, 2010_ fLucy Thompson, 657/266-6578)
Lucy Thompson, PED staff, gave a power point presentarion of the recommendations. She talked about
the purpose of the study, showing the study area and the process to date. Maps were shown of the
existing land use, e�sting zoning and proposed zoning. Ms. Thompson talked about the study's key
conclusions and recommendations. Appro�mately 80% of the ll 1 parcels within the study area are
recommended for rezoning, mostly to TN2 Traditional Neigliborhood. Other key
conclusions/recommendations include:
1. T1V2 is the appropriate new zoning classification for most of the study azea to bring zoning into
general compliance with neighborhood plans and the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan.
2. B3 zoning of three pazcels on the west side of Robert Sh at the gateway to District del So] is
more compatible with adjacent land uses and neighborhood plans, and does not create any non-
conforming land uses.
3. Medium-density residential land uses at the edge of the district (State Street Townhomes) are
appropriately zoned RM2, and no change in zoning is recommended.
4. Jerry's Service Center shouid be rezoned to TN2, since it is at the heart of the commercial
district, will be surrounded by TN2 zoning and sits on a parcel with a lot area (7,000) that is less
than half of the minimum required for an auto repair station (15,000 square feet). Jetry's is a
non-conforming use under its current zoning (B2), and would remain a non-conforming use
under'IN2.
5. Rodria ez Auto Service should remain B3, since it is located on the edge of District del Sol and
has a lot area (almost 10,000 square feet) that is closer to the minimum required for an auto
repau station (15,000 square feet}.
Ms. Thompson noted that staff has already received a resolution from the Riverview Economic
Development Association (REDA) in support of the staff recommendations. REDA was one of the
organizations requesting the study.
Coaunissioner Schertler asked why staff is recommending that the parcel neart to Captain Ken's be
rezoned to RMl. The other oprion would be to leave it Il and haue it be zoned properly for an
expansion of the e�sting or a future Il use. Ms Thompson responded that staff feels the preferred land
use change over time is away from indusirial uses at this gateway to District del Sol. Further, RMl
zoning is more compatible with the existing use of the parcel (duplex) and adjacent zoning to the east.
MOTION: On behalf of the Neighborhood Planning Committee, Commissioner YYencl »wved to
release the draft for public review and set a public hearing on Apri123, 20I0. The motion carried
unanimousZy on a voice vote.
10-403
DI2AN i' Meeting Minutes — to be approved at March 26'�' Plannin¢ Commission Meeting
Citv Coimcil Resolution (3077776) RequestinQ Study of Si�n Re�ulation Issues — Recommendarion to
release drait far pubfic review and schedule a public hearing on Apri123, 2010. (Eraily Goodmary
65I/266-655I)
Commissioner Wencl said that information about the City Council resolution requesting the study of
sign regulations and the sYaff recommendations in response were enclosed in tfie commissioners'
packets and Emily Csoodman, PED staf� was available for questions today.
MQTION: On behatf af the Neighborhood Planning Con:mittee, Commissioner R'enrt moved to
releuse the draft for public review and set a public hearing on Apri1 �3, 2010. The motion emried
unanimously on a voice vote.
Commissioner Wencl announced that the nea-t Neighborhood Committee meeting is on Wednesday,
Mazch 31, 2010.
VII. Communicalions Committee
Commissioner Smitten had no report.
VIII.
IX.
%
XI.
Task Force Reports
No reports.
Old Bnsiness
None.
New Bnsiness
None.
Adjournment
Meeting adjoisned at 9:58 a.m.
Recorded and prepared by
Sonja Butler, P tannino Commission Secretary
Planning and Economic Development Department,
City of Saint Paul
Respectfiilly submitted,
Approved
(Date)
s
�
i
Donna Drummond Marilyn Porter
Planning D"uector " Secretary of the Planning Commission
10-403
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Chnstopher B. Coleman, Mayor
DEPARIMENT OF PLANNING & �
ECONOMIC DE4"ELOP;viEY'L
Cec.le Bedor, OrreCmr �""��
25 West Fourth Sveet Telep'none 6.i1 d66-b6?6
SmnrPmd,,IqJ55102 Facs'mn1e:651-?28-3341
To: Saint Paul Planning Commission
From: Comprehensive Planning Committee
Date: March 10, 2010
Re: UPDATE ON TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT SECfION of Revised Zoning Code
Amendments on Off-Street Parking Requirements and Design Standards Recommended to
Planning Commission for consideration on March 12, 2010
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Planning Committee met on March 9 and discussed revised text forthe Travel
Demand Management—Section 63.122 of Saint Paul's off-street parking requirements.
The recommendation from Comprehensive Planning Committee discussions on February 2" and 16`
was to maintain the proposed TDM plan requirement and procedures, but revise the code language
to be clear and enforceable. The City Attorne�Js office reviewed severai TDM ordinances from other
cities and discussed concerns and issues with Planning staff. The TDM ordinance text was revised
based on the research and discussions.
RECOMMENDATION
The Comprehensive Planning Committee recommends the following revision to Travel Demand
Management, Section 63.122, subsection (b), for Planning Commission consideration on March 12,
2010, with the rest of the proposed Off-Street Parking Code Amendments.
Section 63.122. Travel demand management plan requirement
(b) App/icability. This section applies to any development or redevelopment, including phased construction,
requiring ^�^,-��-n,a„'�^^ one hundred (100) or more parki�g spaces, and to any change in use resulfinq in a
parkinq increase of twentv-five (25) percent or fifty (50) parkinq spaces whichever is less and requiring
^•°.o.�.,n„h^^ one hundred (100) or more a�ieaa!-parking spaces, based upon the parking
in sections 63207 and 63208.
STAFF CONTACTS
Merritt Clapp-Smith, 651.266.6547 / merritt.clapp-smith@ci.stpaul.mn.us
Tia Anderson, 651.266.6562 / tia.andersonC�ci.stpaul.mn.us
10-403
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Ch>isfopher B Colem¢n M¢yo>
To:
Saint Paul Planning Commission
From: Comprehensive Planning Committee
Date: March 3, 2010
DEPARTi�NT OF PLANNING & �
ECONOUIIC DEVELOPivIEN"C
Ceci[e Bedor, Dnector ,121,
25WestFourthSVeet Telephone:6�1-266-6626
SamtPmel,:LLVi5702 Faaimile:6�1-228-3341
Re: Revised Zoning Code Amendments on Off-Street Parking Requirements and Design
Standards Recommended to Planning Commission for consideration on March 12, 2010
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Planning Committee met on February 2" and 16 and discussed the Pianning
Commission public hearing on proposed code amendments to Saint Paul's off-street parking
requirements. In light ofthe testimony and follow up research by staff, the Committee requested
revisions to the code amendments.
This memo highlights the pubiic testimony and presents the Comprehensive Planning Committee
recommendations for the Commission regarding the proposed off-street parking code amendments.
Attached for reference are:
• Revised off-street parking code amendments, with red text showing changes since the pubiic
hearing. (Note: CPC membe�s received this in the 3-9-10 packet j
• Summarytable of key code amendments and rationale, with shaded cells and bold text
showing changes since the public hearing. (Note: CPCmembers received this in fhe 3-9-10
packet.]
• Draft resolution for Planning Commission. (Note: CPC members received this in the 3-9-10
packet.J
ANALYSIS
Below is a list of parking code sections which received public comment, followed by analysis and a
recommendation from the committee. Recommendations on revised code are noted in red text in
the enclosed code document and are explained in the Revisions and Rationale table. Some of the
revisions found in the code and table are not re(ated to the topics below, but are simply
wordsmithing recommended by staff.
Minimum parking for auto uses— 63.207(aj
!1�
10-403
There was testimony expressing concern about minimum parking for auto service 6usinesses
being se# to 1 space per 400 sq ft, like other retail and service businesses. (Note: The proposed
requirement is actually 1 space / 40Q sq ft+ 1 space / service bay.)
• Do these businesses create higher parking demand than other retail service businesses, due to
cars being stored for servicing, either on a daily or long-term basis?
• Would the proposed iJ400 requirement for these uses generate new issues or nuisances from
the businesses?
Analysis
• Staff did a visual parking survey of seven (7) auto service businesses on the late morning of
Thursday, Feb. 4` In the visual survey, parked cars were counted and noted as appearing to
be there on a short-term or long-term basis. Staff then compared the number of parked cars
per business to the estimated number of required parking spaces the site would have under
our current and proposed parking requirements. The table below summarizes the results.
Site # of parked Any long- Current Proposed Wouid proposed
cars term? / required required required meet partcing
Vacant parking parking demand for short and
spaces? long-term cars?
1 9 No / S vacant 13 10 Yes '
2 10 + o#hers Yes J no 21 15 ?- Not if the long-term
next door?? cars next door are with
ihe business
3 � 8 11ong/ no 10 8 Yes
4 10 45 long / no 7 5 No, afthough close to
meeting short-term
5 3 No / 1 space 8 6 Yes
6 8 No / 8 vacant 12 9 Yes
7 16 Yes / 45 10 7 No, akhough cioser if
vacant ' no long-term
• What the survey and table indicate is that the proposed parking requirement of 1/400
appears to be adequate to meet the dailv parking demand at auto service businesses, but it is
not adequate to prbvide enough space if long-term vehicle parking occurs on the lot. The
Comprehensive Planning Committee feit that parking requirements for auto uses should be
designed to accornmodate daity use, not long-term storage.
• Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) are required for auto service businesses. Conditions such as
maximum # of cars allowed to be parked on the lot are more effedive than parking code
requirements in addressing and managing the look and operation of tfiese businesses,
including parked cars.
• Changes to required parking will not alter the parking and operation of nontonforming auto
businesses that do not have a CUP.
Recommenda#ion
�-17
10-403
• Retain proposed code amendment that changes required parking to 1 space/ 400 sq ft+ 1
space / service bay. Continue to manage nuisance concerns related to auto 6usinesses
through the CUP process.
Minimum parking for 6ingo halls, pawn shops and currency exchange — 63.207(a)
There was testimony expressing concern about currency exchange, pawn shops and binga halls
having reduced parking requirements.
• Pawn shops and currency exchanges are proposed to be required at 1 space per 400 sq ft GFA
and bingo halls are proposed at 1 space per 200 sq ft GFA. This is a reduction of current
requirements in both cases.
• Do these businesses create higher parking demand than other retail service businesses?
• Would the reduced requirements generate new issues or nuisances from ihe uses?
Ana lysis
• Bingo halis are proposed to be required the same amount of parking as dance halls and
assembly halls, which are estimated to be of similar intensity. These types of places do not
create as much parking demand as bars and the current requirement of 1 space per 75 sq ft is
excessive.
s Other cities studied do not have higher parking requirements for pawn shops and currency
exchanges than for general businesses.
• StafF did a visual parking survey of two (2) pawn shops on the late morning of Thursday, Feb.
4 (Other pawn shops and cucrency exchanges in Saint Paui were not able to be evaluated
because they do not have clearly delineated parking Iots; they are located aiong commercial
corridors with street parking or shared lots.} Staff then compared the number of parked cars
per business to the estimated number of required parking spaces the site would have under
our current and proposed parking requirements. The table below summarizes the results.
Site # of parked Current Proposed Would proposed required
cars required required parking meet parking demand for
parking short and long-term cars?
1 10 cars - many 29 16 Yes
vacantspaces
2 6 cars; 9 vacani 29 16 Yes
spaces
• The survey indicated that the proposed parking requirement of 1/400 appears to be mo�e
than adequate to meet the daily parking demand at pawn shop businesses.
• Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) are required for pawn shop and currency exchange businesses
and provide a better mechanism than parking requirements to manage the operation of these
businesses.
Recommendation
�l7
10-403 ;
• Retain proposed code amendments that reduce required minimum parking for pawn shops,
currency excfianges and bingo helis to better match parking demand and requirements for
similar intensity uses.
Maximum parking requirement— 63.247 (c and dJ
There were two public comments opposing a parking maximum and two comments suggesting
that ihe maximum should be set lower. There was also a comment stating that the code language
was confusing for maximums and condftions when exceeding the minimum.
Analysis
• Parking utilization studies conducted by staff were used to determine a maximum parking
Ievel that would accommodate the vast majority of the most popular businesses during busy
hours. The 300% of minimum for eating uses and 170% of minimum for other uses provides
an adequate range of parking to meet the low and high end of parking demand.
• The CUP provision allowing exceedance of the maximum with proof of need provides a
reasonable option for businesses that have uniquely high parking demand.
• Small businessesJlots ihat only want to add a few spaces above the maximum should not be
required to go through the CUP process. The lot size threshold #hat triggers a CUP for
exceeding the maximum should be reised. (See table below for summary of impact based on
size of buiiding.)
• Code language in Section 63.207(c and d) is confusing and should be rewritten.
Maximum Allowed Parking Spaces w/out CUP or Structured Parking (no max. applies in lots < 15
spaces)
Additional
Maximum spaces allowed Maximum Additional spaces
@ 170% of above max. with @ 300% of allowed above
Buiiding F�cample of Minimum ` minimum 15 space minimum max. with 15
GrossFloor comparable Requirement {forgenerel thresholdfor {forfood spacethreshold
Area building size 1/400 sq ft business) CUP uses) for CUP
Dairy Queen
1,000 {seasonal) 3 4 11 8 8
1,300 ` 3 6 9 10 5
1,600 4 7 S 12 3
2,000 5 9 7 15 CUP / strudured
Brew6errys
2,300 coffeeshop 6 10 5 17 CUP/structured
2 Burger King . 7 11 4 20 , CUP i structured
Bank Cherokee -
3,000 6rand 8 13 2 23 CUP/structured
3,300 8 14 1 25 CUP / strudured
3,600 9 15 CUP /strudured 27 CUP / s[rudured
4,000 Perkins 10 17 CUP J structured 30 CUP / structured
�1�
10-403
4,300 ; 11 18 CUP / strudured 32 CUP / strudured
Former �
� MississippiMkt- �
� 4,600 Randolph � 12 20 CUP / strudured 35 CUP / strudured
Recommendation
Retain proposed code amendments for maximums set at 170% and 300% of minimum.
Increase the threshold above which maximum parking applies from a ten (10) space Iot to a
fifteen (15) space lot.
• Revise Section 63.207(c and d) wording to clarify intent.
Mixed use corridor reduction — 63.212 and 60Z14
There was general support in public comments for allowing a 10% reduction to parking minimums
within a quarter mile of mixed use corridors, but some committee members expressed concern
about how much land it wouid apply to.
Analysis
• The attached Mixed Use Corridor map shows the eligible 10% reduction zones based on the
originally proposed language —within one quarter (1/4) mile of each of the Land Use Plan's
"Mixed Use Corridor" street segments.
• "Mixed use corridors" were identified during the Comp Plan process as those areas of the City
that are most conducive to multi-modal trip options and intended for stronger TOD
development patterns and policies that will enhance the urban form of the areas and build
their success for walking, biking and transit. However, the Comprehensive Planning
Committee felt that because the corridors appiy to most of the Citys commercial streets, a
special 10% parking reduction there would be duplicative ofthe proposed reductions for
commercial uses Citywide, and that the appropriate parking levei for these corridors should
be determined by citywide parking requirements, not through an add-on reduction.
Recommendation
e Delete the proposed mixed use corridor reduction eligibility for sites in proximity (1/4 mile) to
the mixed use corridors.
Preferentiai parking spaces — 63.213
There was mixed reaction to requiring 5 of 5% of parking spaces to be set aside for preferentSal
parking spots. The burden of enforcement was one key concern.
Recommendation
• Revise proposed language to allo� but not require, up to 5 or 5% of spaces, whichever is
lower, to be designated for preferentia� parking.
Wheel stops— 63.311
5l�
10-403
�
�
There was concern expressed about earth berms not being strong enough to serve as wheef stops �
for cars, as allowed in our current and proposed landscaping requirements. Committee members
agreed that this was a legitimate concern. �
Recommendation
• Revise proposed �anguage to noi allow eartfi berms forthis purpose.
Tree piantings — 63.314 (d}
Comments submitted from a Iandscape architect questioned the proposed minimum landscape
dimensions for tree planting. The committee members agreed that this shoutd be investigated.
Analysis
• The City forester was asked to review the proposed tree planting requirements for parking
lots. He replied with two memos, attached. Many of fiis recommendations are detailed
landscaping considerations which should be evaluated in a comprehensive review of the Cit�s
Iandscaping and stormwater design standards. StafF from DSI wilt be leading such an effort in
the coming year or two. In the meantime, a few modest improvements to tree planting
requirements can be incorporated into the parking code amendments. Unfortunately, the
ideal quantity and qual+ty of soit needed to support vigorous tree growth is space and cost
prohibitive. The City and the public want Iovely trees in the urban environment, but such
trees are not easy to grow in limited space.
• Staff reviewed the proposed tree canopy regulations for the Critical Area and found tfiem
similar to the proposed parking code revisions.
Recommendation
• Adopt modest revisions to tree planting requirements which balance space and cost
limitations with the desire to provide conditions adequate for better tree growth and survival
than eicperienced in projects that comply with current minimum planting standards.
TDM plan requirement — 63.122
There was one public comment objecting to the proposed TDM requirement. The committee
members felt comfortable with the requirement generally, but had some questions about how
the language was crafted and its implementation.
Anaiysis
. The City Attorne�s o�ce reviewed several TDM ordinances from other cities and discussed
concerns and issues with Planning staff. Based on the research and discussions, revised text
for the TDM ordinance is proposed for cansideration by the Comprehensive Planning
Committee on March 9, 2010. The draft, revised text is inc(uded in the attached code.
Recommendation
• Maintain the proposed TDM plan requirement and procedures, but revise the code language
to be clear and enforceable.
�I�
10-403
• The Comprehensive Planning Committee will review the proposed text revisions at its meeting
on March 9, 2010, and bring a recommendation to the Planning Commission on March 12,
2010.
RECOMMENDATION
The Comprehensive Planning Committee recommends revisions to the off-street parking
requirements, as described in this memo and in the attached Proposed Off-Street Parking Code
Amendments and forwards them to the Planning Commission for consideration on March 12, 2010.
A draft Planning Commission resolution recommending the proposed off-street parking code
amendments to the City Council is attached.
STAFF CONTACTS
Merritt Clapp-Smith, 651.266.6547 / merritt.clapp-smith@ci.stpaul.mn.us
Tia Anderson, 651.266.6562 /tia.anderson@ci.stpaul.mn.us
-�/�
10-403
�
�
h
ti
.7.
�
�
�
Fr
�
.�
�
O
�
a�i
�
N
�
"ci
N
�
�
A�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
O
.�
�
.�
O
U
�
.�
�
QI
O
.--�
O
N
�
N
N
.-y
x.
w
1
�
OJ
�
O
U
.
�
�
a
�
Y
�
�
.�
�
b�A
x
�
�
0
y c m � � � 0 a O
= m E � vi � � a� - a p m w a m� rn �
y °� a�i °� ° � ° o '� �' m � m o L „- � � � s ° y �
N�c -� � ��. '.' = c m� v a� E �° m c4 � �
V N a� C� � w � U Y N tn a r � d� � O � � y?� - O Q
(6 R N m � > U = "- t6 � � O � N G � >. (6 X �
fl' c � J d E a-� � d O�C Q. L O� (6 �� O a N - 13 "V '- .0
u'� �E mm �-�o� ���._wQ.�-� s� a� ��� m E-..
� � � �� �� N � N N m� O� N m U � � N Q C fn
~ ~ � � C (J O _4 N .+=J (6 E Q � � .�. C - Q1 p � 4 = � 0 - O
�_� oi a� Q m � N 3 r�ii �? a N i �° w c � y�o � o�� c 3
°� a "' i � s 'a � c° 3 m �"" N 3 � 3 °= E o n. o o m�° o
m E o�' c' �- .- o a� a�° o � o - o v�3 �° c
�°-o�� o`°� rn3 io m �_ oa m m � a ma �
41 � tJ � � Q .�-. U . � N N � O C p� 'O c6 � y1 � N O
� N fA ��"� N � C C��� N C C N m
Q � Y N L � C.-. O� N O O Q y� m al � O. V 0 w�� p
� (p � U N � � Q � � (i �N � in � L (�6 �' S � � L C � tn
a�E�-� �cc�.>°E�m �s�y �O °16 m� w Ew� �c°�i
��� 0 3 F E�c m m a. ° �°- � E� �a m� a 9 = � u�i �n a� o_
E � � � � ,., o "urni m rn � � � � � � L � '. °- - m s v m N m
�
� u�i m� m c N �� o>..: � a� c�- � m °� a o � � d n. � m
m � � c � m °
c �� � E a�i E o m E m m> E ��'� ��+ ` �' '� � a O a� U m
a �-�� E �° m°� m s O d rn a� Q� m rn c N� o m o ..: o w o y�
3 E E a� -� c.��. � c �� '3 c- t n c o fn y � . c o o
m m �. fl ������m � �� 3 m m � a a a � � �-�° E o s m v 3
� nm �� om m n�morn�a m�O-� 'o�a�..�o
� � o d f0 m � E � 0 �Q @ � � a � `�'� �c � � � m ° ° �+ � � �� � p � � � �
U O� c� Q 0.� >, �� o> � � N� m c�i L �� � ip � ° a> >, w a w N a�i
.9 N� G� p N� L � N N 0 � m�0 N N N � 9� tII � O' ` N� f0 � O N
m a� 0 14 � ac� �°J� a QE'oa Qc� E o�� T�°- a� o_� C U L�� �
m °- ° s E ��° m Y c o � � � m� fl- a� m'a� 'm m� �� m� a�'_ p�
u. O°m�O tnaa�a�oo � tq°u.mOsa cc � in cn U' o:cEo
� �' U
.�+ � O +.,
C - �p
m Qw' � U
� � N � N N N
d
= N U (/� N N -
m m s �� Q o U �wa u�i
a c c o � o N T m c
C d ' o m� 0 m�� .
y � ° " c '°
7 ¢ �p � N
� �
a .� � .Q � _o
Y = � c
~ N m Q ]� C � C � C C
� a � � Y � � � Y � N E �`1 � y
O � � � C � � � � @ � � � � � �
N � m m � d.� � Q.� � n.
� N N N
� F �
� N 'O (� t� t�
� � N CD I� i� i�
� o 0 0 0
� �.j N N N N
!!1 CO t+i M ('7 c�J
m cfl co m co
� N U U tJ U
U � tr�i in v� cn
� - o E
0 � N (II � N �p � � " N
� i Q >;,,,, o- p � � � c
p � N N J' C � m � m N� d
L a s � ~ p� ~ N a � Q��
� �� E m � m � m � U o>
� U U �£ � o � N � N o U p
m U � d o
F � �
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� c c � c c c c c
� � � � � � � � �
o � � � -� -� -� � �
N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N
0
0
N
�
M
10-403
w
�
�
�
4a
�F-i
O
�n
�
a
�
.�
�
O
Y
S�
N
�
�
�
'C
�
�
O
O
�r
�
�
b�A
.�
�
O
.�
m
.�
O
U
�
�
.�
�
a
O
O
N
�
N
N
�
O
W
Y
N
�
O
U
�
p
�
P-�
h
Y�
i-�
N
�
.ti
�
F��a
b�A
.�
A
S�,
� �
� c o a o c vi
`m ov m Y E ° y v cv ` m
��� o m.- o � rn= m - +ri - m y a�v'
3� �od a mo N°- �Q c3 w>' m >S c°Ji �c
ia � � � m � � � o � 's u� o � � o � � o> > ��
°- > o� m i°� t ° 3 Q o" m� � m o. E � a � ��
w.�ca y' w �°-' �a m� m �i� 3�° mo> .rn�s�
af � a ` m '= a� m n. = m. m �� �,-�.. rn� y� m t � m c m
t N m�`'m � C � y tn � Q C m c���p m � � N
� p �� � O i Q � O m � N� s � � � � m m� W� m n N �
caTi �m� m c a1.... �a � y� EQ ommo-a. °mmn
v m a Q- t m m Q N c N 'm �
:cr m�ooY �mv `om - a 3 mrn a' ,:��f 0 w
o�� o � �o �� -o_ m° E � �•�� �°v m o � y�
Q y 7.r+ > vi �- m m t ' Q Ul � N p N C N
� ma�n �c � 3 "�.o - Q�N�iam�"m� �oro
� a c� i rn .m 'c a� -m ».. � m � rn °� N m� a� Q� m m� n s d� a rn m
�� Y �� m i° � o � �� s' �' � m o--° �� ca c � m c a� o m rn� y
c m
� `m � 0'3 - a t � m � ,. a m c a � � n'N o � . .� � = c�
a c � O c p � i y 9 - N'lp p� a a i N ��p rn� C s o� m� p`� �� U
m �a m u� ' i! c m Y° �� _c a� m d � o � N 9 m� 0 3 m c m
�. 2 �Q m
Z � - C 7' � ro N._ N (Q-r� � 6 � ap.�
m% m m c@..� c+ t� c�i - o w V� m� y a �> w ���� c�� p`� ���
` m � � m � � � ° - o � o c N �6 �� � � m c � � � a 3 � u� a 3 � o �
c �,._o� rn_ mm c_ m. _�mm3Ym� ooc o.mm°E
g Q��o�c. Q- oo °co ��3 m a�� °oco o�va,�'�m
� � 3 � � macm v a�v�o�.
m� L��_��� m'�c ��t ���E ....a�= v _mm m am�m. mms
� y� N y' � tll Z f6 2 i V N O �' N� N � N� = y6
�m 3 m m(6 O�p fA w O N. 6_ Q �' y R m O O p� O a� p y
6 c v w� w m mm: m m».�.-. aS- Er�qm m�o mon�
�a �m�cm c ��c ° co °�
Y ta a�ooN mm ° m��m wm� wa�momo � N...
R a�i'° o m m m�� E �� � m c E E > � -�c � ,��a�';� 3 � m o m�
.o m a����m a$°� m�£o�OO�ao�"xco�2��
m O � C[�) N'L"' fl. Y �a�+ li tS N Q� U ro� � O U� O_ S> O_ � � O. V� y fl- U O_ U�
a O m m� m O � i F- m w tA n m � n �!n m�� m s fA c�i � m n� � rA 9�� m
�
V CJ � �
m Z ?�.., � � � �
a�o �''3ca
m N � � � N �
� �@ Uj m @ V � N �
7 N
a N m Q- = c°� c
�' � � = 3 � � i �
a � � � � y = 3 m
� t 9 � v �
� n � s
m
- F E rnc � °'� � °�� � °'�
Q � Y � N � 1 ' � N E Y � y � Y � N
;r C l6 d � � � d � � � � 3 � R � 3
V � Q.3 � � 3 � � � � Q.3
m
� m N N N
_ � t� (v W
� � � n �
�� o 0 0 0
m N N N N
aI fh M (M M
m m co m �o
�
U � CA ll� �
N m
-Q � N -Q Ul v - a f � w
O N >'.�-. > y � � V o- p 0 � N
O O] C J C � C Q N N �- m m y 3 O'
N J 3 .Q � C� p
� U m �� �� c@£ t6 V � U O>
� � '� o '� o �UV �E 'N L oUo
� mU c�U 0 '" � o
F N Q �
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m c c c c � c � c �
Y
lC (6 (6 (6 16 f6 f6 (6 t6 [6
0 ? "a '� � � �a � '� -�
N N � N N N - N N N
0
0
r,
N
10-403
y
�
s�.
y
�
�
O
�
a
�
.�
�
0
�
�
-S'i
-S '� i
�
�
"a
�
�
�
O
s,
$�
�I
�
�
.�
�
�
�
.�
�
.'y
�
�
O
U
�
�
.�
�
a
0
0
N
N
N
�
�
O
�
Y
�
�
O
�
U
.fl
�
�
Y
�
�
�ti
�
.�
V
�
�
�
.�
iti
�
R
-� � W m N �O
N CJ � N C � '� �' � �j � �
O p) C � ` � '6 � N p � N � (6 � �
(�j 'i E X � � Q �(6 � O � N m G tL�p t6 y� ��
�
Q s E n °- m°� E' �n > a�i m�� � m� p���� t � �
� a� �� m m o m E L�� a� m�° �� m m u"i ��� c N �
m� � L '�� ��` m s o a�i � 0 3� =o z N`6 a c i � m
a� � 3 � m m � '� N � � � � � � a .N 3 . m � E � � �
-o `m_ �nm m m m� E caw oY
� � m � o � � °� ° � m � ° �- m m � m m � m -6 � m
° o L ` `° s �� "a o o� �� m.c � a �> � � o m n
v c � �n .n c� a s i m°. m c E m` ~-, �o v�i m� a'�i o' � E
� o � � � � `° � c � n N Q m °' � °- 3 � = o � ¢ � E
o .J o y � a � � � y .� N � , , rn N � � s ; rn � � :�
a a wmm amE cu>a�ca`a>a -IINm� � E
y m � o a� a� o � a � ��
mn ' °'� ��,a oo �EZ,Q�°c'�
'�tn ���-� �n�m�s�om�a» £a�m��'in3
a��i � ° c' � ° °�.` % 0 9 � >, � � `° a � � � � a� o'� y E � w
(6 L"� O'� N � N�N - 6 (6 O O(E � N N��' � p
C - O N O '6 fA N N � C Y+�.' (6 N w� m N� Y y � L� U.
0 U= @�� O@ N a tR O_ N G � G" N '� O Q N N � S
m -0 3 w s O.N �� � m d m �� a � o w O v c�
� o m y m c o m� o d�� a�i N� t m°3 �° E a` o o�� m
� O L 'p U V � � � a (p y � Q f6 � � � _ � � C N Q O � � �
t ,� C � 6 �-
� n ° n m N � � E � �' o � � � � �� �..�-. a� � N E � � � N m � E
{p +-� y +-' ��� N 'O 'C C � Q � tll N�� N N i V � i O Q C�O U O I` L N
ryl
'C Q� = Q C"6 Q N � O_ "6 p� C(n a E C � N N O 0 O N
d Q � m a� X fl- m E ai �- �°- m i a�i m m a� � c � Q> m a o� "' E a�i
N � U1 p� � f0 '- � Q N N� C Q � � O L N� O N� �� M O�
ti cnn tq aE�n u�a �u�. OU' n`m E..... c �O-a u� co w
�
d
C
L
�_ � �
� C L
�
d
C1
7
�
�;
a �' E �'
't= m mE � ��
C j Y E �'y � N
O -p c6 . X ca v�
'+I N Q. C � O_ .
d � � 6
N �
�
� � ,..
� � U
. d N �
N fh N
m � oi
� ti �
� d
U v� �
�
m a�
� N -Q N �
w �
> .,°-�� S ° � n > � 3 � � �
o �"� a`m a� �` J '� ° d� d
� ° E c E � � ° E � � � �
� o � � � o 'm ��U
�U U co � m U
F- F
0 0 0 0 0 0
d c c c c c c
{6 N N N N N N
p � � � � � �
N N N N (V N
N N N N N N
O
N
�
M
M
�
X
�
�
h
�
E
❑
�
�
x
�.
N
�
ti
�
8
0
U
�
.�
�
V
c,
10-403
N
a�
�
4�
�I-�I
�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
O
�
N
�
N
�
�
N
�
0
O
�
�
0
�
•�
�
Li
O
.�
m
.�
�
�
�
.�
�
a
O
O
�
�
N
N
.--i
O
w
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
a,
�
Y e-1
i�-I
Q�
�
ni
•�
N
t-�
bU
�
.x
�
' C i a � V Y� W m v N M
N p� "6 � �p •� tp t6 O T s.'�-. N c� � � m O
� Q a (6 O� .."�-. N C �� 4� O O CI _ � W N O � S Y � '�
m� �a n 3 m E._. m�� � o o rn`m v rno y Q� ° o
°m - o°-oo ���w c�o o`° �°�'�' m
o��� m m m E � '� o ���� c a� a c- c � "��' �
W m za m w .n e> c�� d V ° m`� > �°, �°� m� �H a�i a
� w>, a m a? a� m c m�'o c> s��_ � i° � m m. ia -o m
� � N Q (6 "6 � R C � � U 'C L � pl �' Q � � "6 X S 3 `� -.�`-. i x
EvO3-Qm �m�6mm°�cmcm�o omm oiu�cE .�
m�`� `��v `� � m m a � L�rn� m m m� � m m�'x Q o
��QY3�� m�aiZ'mRto�m�'�m�o�rn �N��fl- �
°� m �° �� m m c a a � i � c o� ° n c m�m .� m F � o c°'° o Q. a m
� �.n 3 �a �
m c m E m n
c 3 a=a o -Y m E Ea�a m o 0 4 - c> � m a�o m c
�-o-3mia�a� 3 m�- aR n`mmoc- cmc �m
�oomnoc �nEa�Q�?.mOE�3� `o�oY� E
cto �m mmQ� 'A � m" mm- o•-� �
rm n�-.._ o�rn m w ° �a�om E
m o o rnNns•.-c-ma�m� c 3 m� 3ma�- -
n°NaFaE c��mo��� u�m� �
m m a � Yxo3NO a�s� Qms '�rn� �: � ��-
�E om�E R m��NN� �E�s. �rn�� ac �cc�im
w am -ac°�irn�accmml-3ooct�z°�E�� o
�� m = � E c m x c m m Y � v�� Q 3� �� �� o y � �
m� � S � m a E� a o� o
� ��'` m m�� 3 N .6 m� m m� a.� > m E a� -Q rn U�°. c m��� 3 �
m E t � 3 a� E� c c � m � w m> � o m �. - � x o-o
� x3 'x�c°NSrno�° 'm�o�m' >�Ec m
Cf �o� � -o m�v� om o m �
�� O�� S � �"- R Q � Y m N N� U��(6 N�� f6 � N m N Q O
c �aNE�mX- ,t, - C
R C O7 C�- y N Q "C .-. m m�� l6 tl! m W p O
m 3m���'n 3o°N�nm�a a
�i ��ar�s`o .°�2o rA
�
�
i
� � � � �
Q C C C C
m
�
m
a
�
� o � m
U1 N 'y V m L
F °� c m "� °� � O
L � N 3 Q j� ,a - 6
O L
:+ a m� U N Q x O
m 3 o v � �U
y ro m C/J
� m O N
O a
V N N N CV
N M c'� th P') -
N � � � �
m
d ti O U
V � � � �
� � �
S N �r � a � in
Q ' �i � 3� V Q Q � C t Q. ��
� h � 3 d� � �- H C� p F J �
s � � C � � ' � � ay ' � �
� m . �E `m m Uo> �
� � ° v��� � � °c�n � � °
m U � p m U
F � F
0 0 0 0 0� ' o 0 0
�
m c c c � � c- c �
m m m m m. m m ca m
Q -� -� � � � � � �
N N N N C N N N
O
O
N
�
M
�
�
X
�
�
F
m
�
a
�
c
L
r--�
O
�
U
�
c
.�
x
U
C.
10-403
N
i�-r
h
w
O
�
�
�-1
�
.�
�
O
�
�
a>
-�
�
N
�
�
N
�
O
O
x.
C�
�
�
�
�
.�
.�
�
.�
�
.�
�
�
U
�
.�
�
a
0
O
N
N
N
1
.--i
s.
w
m
Y
�
�
O
U
�
�
7
�
�
Y
Si
�(�!
�i
S-r
.�
�
Fy
�
�i
�
�
-� � � � r
O " T � N � t�n ' �SJ � N ' O
N O N U N V(J L O�� � N � N v1 s �
C � f6 N.0 '6 N m O N'- �'- tA O N Q� C
Q a`�i u� ��' Q > 3� c a"i y �� 3 y E ° o �� m� y Y v;
��OJ � V � N C� W c�� � � U� N � O � 01. (6 C(6 C Ui
m a1 �p � N G f6 � N G � � 7 rA C y 'C N fl- m
� � � c � m � � �Q- a� . � c �. o �� G o � � � Q � X � o
i- N _. .. .._. ._ m '� o � .� - � - � � m
mmE �� °�mn� �a�°�� �y�=sa�E s°
o � x .- - a �n m N v� ° � � m � � � m 3 � � �
ca � m .... - o m. 'o o c� .c �n .� � >. s a> a
�.� ��- Y N Q O C�� O G y U�p O '� tA = � S �.G
C � 16 O� t6 y y e- (6 �� p. � y� 6 O � T t6 � _ 3
� a d o 3 a u' = a� $ a ° `o_ b o `n a� r ° ° ° o � - � a�i °> � °' �
Q N � N (6 N � N '� � 6J U /4 ... � (4 � � � O_ � O. t6
N N N N C tA N N m�� N a -o Ql :� (6 L y t N �- Y@ N �� � lA
c=� c �°� 3� � o m m c m a� a 3 a� "'-' m m ur ° m � m
Y m � � m � a a� Q. � � � o � `�' ° °- `m � �° ° m y a� Y � a o � Y
��� y -o m� m m '� o y o a � E m m� o>' � a� ��- c° -
Q O V �>�] N � � N .. N � C N m �> Q. � ryi d� d�
m�`� a� u� a�i � a m� �-° m m � m E" m Y�° Y° m p � Y y m
�� 'N N� 5 °' Q'a � 3 u a�i m m m.S !' a°� m°' � �;_, a� .- a� �
a� c m°' �.�G m a� �� 3 a s in m m E r `n � 0 3�� c � i o w c =�
C 9 N � O O p� U V w- v-
�a �� � �� �mo om oc
c m a �� y o �' a� I m� o a� .�G � 3$ o � o�>, m� c m c m
� a '�°°a`o°E$- 'fl.v�w�'��a`>�mc I c�m�r a�a� a>a�
G1 O C ul O N t�J `� � i Q� LT m fl- C�'� C y '� �� O O �'� � N
L
9 C oi '6 O I N �� @�` O� tq C� �' U N
U � ' m� � m��� 3 c ac N �° m m � � T m rn� 3 m:- m Q� c c� c a
� m � w o� .. a m Y � m � m m„- m m
>'- c a� �- m N o�° „' a o� a� `o �.- o� m c� y o>, : � m-� .c
Y �� m� a� a� E `�' �� � E c o� m d _° 3 m m� m m � �n � m
c+ o_ � c a> a� m ... a >. s� rn
� � � O O N N p-Q C N O p N L � O_ N N � �� N� O a �@ O O C O C
- � 3 0 3 `a `o
m �QY� ���, � ��v�-�mm�m��YQ�s�E Q� a�
ti' i-y�rnm��a cn� tn�
�
d
�
m
'� (6 N (0 (6 @ t6 N (6 t6 t0
S � � C C C C C C C C
�
m
N
�
N �
= � U � Q �J O� � � � 6J m
F C Q m � Q O_ Q Q. Q Q Q.
� N m N..�. tn (�J U C�J V V U C�J
� � c �� a�i � a a v � � a
• f�..� �'y� � > .0 C C G C C' C C
m a@ C > J J J J J J J
N Q IL
O � M o v v v v v v v
�
V N ("J th C) M M f*J (*J M M
d ri ai oi ri oi ni c�i oi cri c+i
cn co m m m co co co m co m
m U C) (J U U tJ tJ () U U
9 N N N N N N N N N N
0 � � W � � � � N W �
U
E > �
� y S N
O_ d Q �+ Q�+ Q a+ Q a� Q r� Q ' C C N 7 N
o � � @ � � � m � � � � � . p�� � a .
� c�� o� v� c�� c�°? F- cE �
� � N� N� N� VJ L � L � O O�
�S t6 c6 c � - c � c � � � a � m U o>....- �
(n (n J(0 J[Q J(4 J lE j(6 E O U � N O
- � m o � m U
� F-
0 0 0 0 0 o O o o O
d C C C C C C C C G G
R � @ � � � � � � � �
p -� � � � -� � � � � �
N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N
O
O
N
�
M
h
�
X
�
�
F
ro
E
�
�
c0
c
x
�
�
O
�
�
U
en
�
.�
x
U
a.
10-403
Saint Panl Plamung Commiccion
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
Minutes January 22, 2010
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, January 22, 2010, at
8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of Ciry Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
i�imes. Donnelly-Cohen, Morton, Smitten, Thao; and
Messrs. Alton, Commers, Goodlow, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Mazgulies,
Nelson, Schertler, Spaulding, and Wazd.
Mmes. *Faricy, *Porter *Wencl, and Mr. *Wickiser
*Ezcused
Also Present: Donna Drummond, Planning Directoc; Lucy Thompson, Allan Torstenson,
Patricia Sames, Mesitt Clapp-Smith, Luis Pereira, Jessica Rosenfeld, Anton
Jerve, Emily Goodman, Tia Ande�on and Sonja Bufler, Depaztment of Planning
and Economic Development staff.
I. Approval of minutes January 8, 2010.
MOTION: Commissioner Nelson moved approval of the minutes of January 8, 2010.
Commissionerponnelty-Cohen seconded the mofion. The motion carried unarzimously on a
VOLCC VOCC.
I�
Cl�air's Ammouncements
Chair Alion announced that the City Council approved tl�e reappointments of Erick Goodlow,
Richazd Kramer, and Michael Mazgulies to the Planning Commission, and he congratulated them
on their reappoinhnents. At the same meeting the Ciry Council also apgroved the appointment of
new members to replace Comavssioneis Faricy, Gordon, Lu, Morton, Barrera, Johnson and
Alton. For the commissioners who aze transitioning off the next meeting on Febrnary 5, 2010
will be their last meeting and the new commissioners will be sworn in. All of the commissioneis,
carrent and new, aze expected to attend and participate in the matters befare the Planning
Cotnmission. Chair Akon thanked the conunissioners for theu good service on the Plaiuiing
Commission.
III. Plannivg Director's Announcements
Doana Dmmmond reported that the City Council laid over to January 27, 2010 the approval of
preliminary Central Comdor streetscape assessments because Councilmember Carter was out of
town. There was also a public hearing to consider the appeal of Ray Matter regarding condiflons
the Planning Commission had approved for establishment of legal nonconforming use for an
excava6ng business at 770 Brookline Street. The City CouncIl upheld the Planning
10-403
Commission's decision and ihe appeal was denied
N. PUBLIC HEARING:
Chair Alton announced that the Saint Paul Planning Commission was holding a public hearing on
the Zoning Amendments to Saint Paul's Off-Street Pazking Requuements and Design Standards.
Notice of tha public hearing was published in the Legal Ledger on December 24, 2009, and was
sent to the citywide Early Notification System list and othef interested parties.
Merritt Clapp-Smi£h, PED staff, said that there have been two staff piesentations on the materials
from the propased code amendments for the off-sffeet parking requuements and design standazds.
At the last meeung in December, the commissioners xeceived all of the wde amendments, the
rauonale far those amendments and all of the public comments from the fall public and
siakeholder meetiags. Since December things have been qniet, but staff did receive seven (�
formal comments that are in the commissioners packets today, two (2) letters from residents, one
(1) from a landscape architect, one {1) from Districx 12 Commimiry Conncil, one (1) from the
Metropolitan Consortium of Commimity Developers, one (1) from Saint Paul Smart Trips and
one (1) from Transit for Livable Communities. The comments have been generally supportive of
the proposed revisions.
Chair Alton read the rules of procedure for the public hearing.
TLe following people spoke.
l., Ms. Bazb Thoman, employed with Transit for Livable Commimities and a Saint Paul
resident. Ms_ Thoman said that a few years ago, Transit for Livable Communities wrote
a report called the "Myth of Free Parking" and many of the recommendations in that
report are recommendations that aze now being considered as part of the proposed
pazlang code changes. Transit for Livable Communities strongly compiiments siaff and
offers their support of this really important work that is being done. They believe that
pazking orientation in Saint Paul should be more urban rather then submban; that the
lustoric strength of Saint Paul and the firture strength of the city is in being more
compact; mixed-use and walkable. Ms. Thoman said tUat they support the new
minimums and maqimums, and in their letter they enconiage consideration of reducing
the maximum even fiuther than what is proposed They believe tLe proposed parldng
code revisions will contnbute to making the ciiy of Saint Paul the most livable ciry in the
coimtry.
2. Mr. Chuck Repke, Eacecutive D'uector of Distdet 2 Comnnm;ty Council_ He thanked the
departing commissioners who Lave been on the Planning Commission for many, many
years. He said th� it has been an honor and pleasure to be able to come in front of them
and bring the concerns of the neighborhewd he represents over the years.
Mr. Repke said that District 2 bas several concerns about the proposed puking standards.
They aze concemed about the change in standards for automotive repair, auto sa2es lots,
and related auto businesses, because the biulding size of an auto business has nothing to
do with how many pazking spaces aze needecL They sapport the proposed code
amendments for things like restaurants, cafes and coffee shops which reduce them to the
same requirement as other retail uses. The neighborhoods want new restaurant choices
�
�
�
�
10-403
and having consolidated requiremenu will aid development of sites that can't supply
enough pazIdng for restaurants. They aze concerned that bingo halls, pawn shops and
currency exchanges often bave other accessory uses that increase the traffic; though they
may be small faciliaes they may bave a lazger parking demand then the buiiding size
would indicate. He encouraged the Planning Commission in going through the final
deteimination on these things to not reduce requuements that would facilitate uses that
ofren cause neighborhood concems. Making pazldng requuements more lenient does not
seem to make much sense to them
M01`ION: CommissionerponneTly-Cohen moved to dose the pubiic hearing, leave the record
open for written tesfimony until 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 26, 20I0, and to refer the
»zaKer back to the Comprehensive Planning Committee for review and recommendation.
Commissioner Ward seconded the mokon. The mntinn carried unanimously on a vaice vote.
V. Annua] Meeting
Plannin Director's report on achievements durin¢ 2009 and Qoals for 2010
(Donna Dsummond, 651/266-6556)
Donna Dmmmond, Planning Director, noted that at the commissioners places was a two sided
paper, and on one side aze the topics included in the draft Planning Commission annual report.
The Communications Committee will be meeting right after the Planning Comtnission meeting to
review the draft report and finalize it. Ms. Dmmmond highlighted some of the projects in the
draft report and talked about emerging 2010 planning work program prioricies. The past yeaz
there has been a lot of work on the Central Comdor. This work is follow-up work from the base
foundation that was laid by the Central Corridor Development Strategy, wluch the commissioners
worked on with a couple of commumry task forces and was adopted by City Council in 2007.
She noted work on additional station azea plans, the Bike Walk Centeal Comdor Action Plan, the
Puking ieport and workshops, and an EPA Brownf'ields grant. There has also been a lot of work
on the streetscape design and funding of the streetscape improvements. The significant zoning
studies for 2009 include the Design Standazds zoning amendments and Dynazsric Display zoning
amendments. A substantial amount of work was also done on the Parldng Code study.
Work continued on the Ford site redevelopment, with completion of the Ford Site Green
Manufacmring Reuse Study, and the Ford Site Sustainable Redevelopment Siudy. The Ford Task
Force met again for the first time in over a yeaz in Ianuary and Tony Schertler will be taking over
as the Planning Commission Co-Cbair for Carole Faricy. There was a lot of work on 3M campus
redevelopment planning and several of the commissioners were very active in some of those
working groups. Ttuee more neighborhood district plans were adopted, including Distdcts 2, 4
and 8. Staff has done a lot of work on Invest Saint Paul and funding received from the federal
govemment through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to deal with the housing foreclosure
erises in the city. Planning staff have been assisting PED project management staff in
developing a targeted funding strategy to make the best use of the funds.
For 2010 there will be continued work on Central Corridor and on implementation of some of the
key studies and efforts recommended in the CompZehensive Plan. These have been identified as
key planning performance measures for PED. The Mayor's office has asked that each departmeni
identify some performance measures, picking out severat key perfonnance measures that progress
can be measured on over the year. 4Vhat is listed on the handout is still in the discussion stages
10-403
with the Mayor and City Co�mcil_ Some additional planning projecu anticipated for 2010
include: additional work on Ford and 3M, and a study of the West Midway azea, which is the
ciry's biggest industriai area, ta determine how it can be posiuoned for fumre job growth.
Anticipated wning studies include the River Co2ridor Critical Area and Fioodplain Regulations,
Aiiport Zoning, digital zoning maps and zoninq casework
Commissioner Schertler said in regazds to the study of tl�e West Midway industda( area, there is a
certain cost to provide government services for each type of land use. For example, it casss more
to serve iesidential azeas_ When developers come in to rezonepioperty, has there ever been an
effort to quantify the fiscal impacts of the different land uses?
Ms. Drummond said thaY staff has actuaIly been working on a fiscal impact tool to do that very
ttilng. It is a work in progress, as it very reliant on the cost factors aud assumptions that you
make on the front end. Staff is continuing to try and tcveak ihat as an effective tool to look at the
cost of proposed new developments. '
Commissioner Commers asked where the Ciry's ecoaomic deveiopment agenda appeazed on this
list of 201D priorities?
Ms. Drummond said tfiat a lot of the listed piojects relate to economic development and are about
creating a good foundadon or framework for ecoaomic deveFopment
Remrt of Nominatin¢ Committee and IIection of Officers.
Chair Alton zeported on bebalf of the Nominating Committee. The committee offered the
following slate of officers: Kathi Doanelly-Cohen for Chair, 7on Commers for First Vice-Chair,
Kristina Smitten for Second Vice Chair, and Marilyn Porter for Secreiary.
Chair Alton called for nominations from the ftooi. There were none.
MOTION: Commissioner Commer moved to approve a unanimous ballot for ManTyn Porter,
as Secretary. Commissioner Ward seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously on
a voice vote. �
MOTION: Commissioner ponnelty-Cohen moved to approve a unanimnus batlot for %riskna
Smi#en, as Second Vice-Chazr. Commissioner Thao seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
M01TON: Commissioner ]ohnson moved to approve a urza�eimous ballot forJon Commers, as
FirstVice-Chair: CommissionerSpautding seconded the mokon. The mokon carried
urraninzously on a voice vote_
MOTION: Commissioner Commers moved to approve a unanimous ballot for Xathi DonneIIy-
Cohen, as Cha'u. Commissioner YVard seconded the motion. The motion earried unanimousty
on a voice vote.
Chair Alton expressed lus gratitude to the staff and Planning Commiss�oners for their support and
help to kum while he was chair over the past four years. He said it Las been a very enjoyable
experience. He thanked everyone and is loolqng forward to a few more months of service on the
10-403
Planning Commission before he is replaced by a new couunissioner.
VL Zoning Committee
SIfiE PLAi\T REVIEW — List of current applicafions. (Tom Beacb, 651/26Er9086)
None.
r�w susivESs
09-519-870 Hi¢hland Business Association — Conditional Use Permit for seasonal outdoor
farmers' mazket. 2078 Ford Pazkway, SW comer at Cleveland (Emily Goodman, 651/266-6551)
At the question of Commissioner Thao, Commissioner Morton clarified that (11) vendor spaces is
the maximum number.
M01TON: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Committee's recommendation to approve
the conditionat use permit subject to additional canditions. The motion carried unanimously
an a voice vote.
#09-324-603 Pawn America Minnesota — Conditional Use Permit for a pawn shop. 334
University Avenue East, SE comer at Mississippi Street. (Emily Goodman, 651/Z66-655I)
Commissioner Alton noted that a letter was received and distributed dated Ianuary 22, 2010 from
counse] for the applicant in this matter, requesting that this matter be xeferred back to committee
on tlie basis that the applicant would be willing to commit to some additional considerauons and
additionalconditions.
Commissioner Kramer said that the Zoning Committee did lay this over once before, but the
Zoning Committee was pnmarily concerned with maintaining the industriai character of the azea
as opposed to the other issues, although those are cited in the resolution.
MOTION: Commissioner Krmner moved the Zoning Committee's recommeudakon to deny
the conditional us¢ permit, and provided amersded findirzgs #4.
Chair ponnelly-Cohen called for a roll call vote, and explained that Commissioners voting in
favor of the resolution needed to state the basis for their vote, which eould be the reasons
incorporated in the amended resolution.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Tlae mofion to deny the condztional use pernait carried on a roll call vote
IZ-4 (AZton, Commers, SchertZer, Ward).
#09-511-625 Pawn America Minnesota — Variance of required pazldng (27 spaces required, 22
spaces proposed). 334 University Avenue East, SE corner at Mississippi Street.
(Emily Goodman, 65l/266-655I)
Commissioner Kramer suggested that, regardless of a Commissioners' posirion on the conditional
use permit application, the pazking variance should not be approved without knowing the
intended use of ttus properry.
10-403
M01TON: Commissioner Sramer moved the Zoning Commi#ee's recommendution to derzy
1he variance.
Chair ponnelly-Cohen called for a zoIl call vote, and raminded Commissionezs voting for the
% resolution to state their reasons, wluch coutd be the reasons provided in the resolution.
ROLL CAIS� VO`i'E: The motion to deny the vnriance carried on a roll call vote Z2-3 (Alton,
Schertler, Wrvd).
#09�23-979 Walereens (Ford Parkway #2) — Site plan review for a new Walgreen's Drug Store
and second commercial building. 2101 Ford Parkway. Tom Beach, 65If266-9086)
Commissioner Morton reported tkat the Zoning Committee daid this ease over to the January
2$, 20I0 meeting.
Commissioner Marton announced the items on the agenda for the nelct Zoning Committee
meeting on Thursday, January 28, 2010.
VII. Comprehensive Planning Committee
Dawntown Station Area Ptan - Consideration of public comments and recommendatian to
forward to City Council for adoption, subject to Metropofitan Council review.
(Lucy Thompson, 651.266.6578)
Lucy Thompson, PID staff, lughlighted t6e key issnes raised during the public input perivd and
at the Plauning Commission public hearina on December 18, 2009. Based on public cou�ent,
the Committee is recommending changes to the Pian, which are outlined on the last page of the
memo. A couple of the proposed amendments deal with the Children's Play Space at 4`"/Sibley.
Community members asked for specific mention of tLe importance of the play space so that
funding for its reteation and improvement is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. There was
also a fa's amouat of testimony and Committee cfiscussion about parking, and some cl�anges to
the tea�t aze recommended in response. The resoluuon recommends that the Downtown Station
Area PZan be forwazded to the Mayor and City Council with the amendments noted in the 7anuary
15 memo for adoption by the Ciry Council, contingent on review by affected jurisdictions �d
the Metropolitan Council.
Commissioner Kramer asked about the Trout Brook Boulevard, guestioning what showing it on
plan maps means ielative to the City's actual position on constructing the new road. T1�ere is not
much text tall�ng about the purpose of the road, and in tfie past there bave been wncerns about
the cronnecRon.
Ms.'Thompson said that the draft plan shows Trout Brook Boulevard as a solid line, which would
imply thaz it is already in pIace. The grapincs cvill be changed to a dotted line to show that it is a
desired connection. The communiry members that worked on the Downtown Statfan Area Ptan
feel that Trout Brook Boulevazd is an important way to coanect the east side of downtown with
the Mississippi River, as well as Lowertown with the Bruce Vento Nat�se Sanctuuy.
�
�
10-403
Commissioner Kramer said his only concem is that they do not end up using this plan to make the
fmal decision on the road without a more siguficant public process.
Ms. Thompson said ihat she tlunks the language (and she does not have it with her) says
sometivng like explore Trout Brook Boulevazd as a connecUOn to the Mississippi River and
between Lowertown and the Brnce Vento Narsre Sanctuary. She will go back and look at the
language and change it if necessary.
MOTTON: Chair ponnel[y-Cohen moved on behalf of the Comprehensive Planning
Committee to recommend that the Downtown Statiors Area PJan be adopted by the Ciry CounciZ
subject to review by affected jurisdictions and the Metropolitan Council. The mofion canied
unanimously on a voice vote.
VIII. Neighborhood Planning Committee
Chair ponnelly-Cohen announced the next Neighborhood Planning Comarittee meeting is on
Wednesday, January 27, 2010.
IX. Communications Committee
Commission Smitten said that they aze reviewing the annual report for the Planning
Commission's 2009 work right after the meeting. She invited any commissioner not on the
committee to join them m looking at the draft, particulaziy task force chairs and committee chaus.
She will be working with staff to revise and strengthen certain areas of the report.
X. Task Force Reports
Commissioner Thao announced that the Hamline, Victoria, and Westem Station ALea Planning
Steering Committee will be meeting on Wednesday, January 27, 2010.
Comnussioner Kramer announced that the Ciry was awuded legacy money, wluch is
constitutionai amendment money, of over a million dollars to complete a trail in Cherokee Pazk
between Ohio and Delaware. It was in the DNR list that came out yesterday, but the media has
not picked up on it yet.
XI. Oid Business
None
XII. New Business
None
X1II. Adjournment
Meeting adjoumed at 9:45 a.m.
10-403
Recorded and prepued by
Sonja Butler, Plannina Commission Secretary
Planning aud Economic Development Department,
City of Saint Paut
Respecifully submitted, Approved
Donaa Drummond
Planning Dir�tor
(Daza)
Nlazilyn Porter �
Secretazy of the Plannmg Commission
BWe�lplanning com�ssionVanuazy 22, 2010
10-403
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Chrirtapher B. Colem¢n, ,blayor
To:
From:
Date
Saint Paul Planning Commission
Merritt Clapp-Smfth
January 20, 2010
DEPARI'MENT OF PLANNING @ �
ECONOMIC DEVELOPME�'t
Ceci?e Bedor, Dnedor ��
25WestFourthStreet Telephone'6�7-266-6626
SamtPaul,.6fN�5102 Facsimile:651-228-3341
Re: Written Comments for lanuary 22, 2030 Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning
Amendments to Off-Street Parking Requirements and Design Standards
The Planning Commission will hast a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Amendments to
Saint Paui's Off-Street Parking Requirements and Design Standards on January 22, 2010.
At the December 18, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, Tia Anderson and I gave an overview
presentation on the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission packet for that meeting
included three attachments on the proposed revisions, which we asked Planning
Commissioners to retain for the public hearing and subsequent discussion. These included:
1. Zonin� Code Text Amendments - Document showed all proposed parking code
amendments, with strike outs representing deletions and underlined text showing
additions.
2. Off-Street Parking Code Revisions and Rationale Spreadsheets -Two spreadsheets which
explained all proposed changes and the rationale, section by section within the Off-Street
Parking Code.
3. Public Input Spreadsheet - Spreadsheet which documented all comments and questions
received during public review in fall 2009, organized into topic categories by zoning code
section.
Written Public Comments
Attached are 7 comment letters/memos submitted fior the public hearing.
Staff Contac#
Merritt Clapp-Smith, Senior Planner 651.266.6547
10-403
Saint Paul Plauuing Commiccion
City Hall Conference Center
15 Bellogg Boulevard West
Minutes December 18, 2009
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, December 18, 2009, at
8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of Ciry Hall.
Commissioners Nimes. Faricy, Lu, Morton, Porter, Smitten, Thao, Wencl; and
Present: Messrs. Alton, Commers, Goodlow, Gordon, lohnson, Kramer, Margulies,
Nelson, Scherfler, Spaulding, Wazd, and Wicldser.
Commissoners Ms. *Donnelly�ohen
Absent:
*Excused
Also Present: Donna Drummond, Planning Director; Tom Beach, Department of Safety and
Inspections; Allen Lovejoy, Public Works; Patricia James, Merritt Clapp-Smith,
Jessica Rosenfeld, Kate Reilly, Sazah Zorn, Tia Anderson, and Sonj a Bufler,
Department of Planning and Economic Development staff.
I. Approval of minutes December 4, 2009.
MOTION: Commissioner Commers moved approval of the minutes of December 4, 2009.
Commissioner Ward seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
II. Chair's Annauncements
Chair Alton announced that he and Commissioner Faricy Lad resigned from the Zoning
Committee, and he Lad appointed Commissioners Coauners and Goodlow as theu replacements.
He aiso announced that he will be appointing a nominating committee, and will appoint himself
and two others comarissioners to serve. The committee will noaunate Planning Commission
officers for 2010.
III. Planning Director's Announcements
Doana Dmmmond reported that the City Council held a public hearing on the Design Standards
Zoning Amendments on December 16`". No one testified in opposifion so the amendments are
on the way to final adoption next week.
The Council has also recently approved two resolurions requesting studies by the Planning
Commission. One is requesting study of additional sia regulations that came out of the work
completed on the recendy adopted Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance. This was inivated by
Councilmember Thune. The second resolution is reqnesting that the Planning Commission
undertake a study of zoning regulations for currency exchanges, and unposing a moratorium on
granting any permits or approvals for future curtency exchanges until the study is completed.
10-403
i
c
�
IV. PUBLIC HEARING: Downtown Station Area Pfan — Item from the Comprehensive Planning
Commit[ee. (Lucy Thompson, 651f266-6578, and Jessica Roserrfel� 65I/Z66-b560)
Chair Alton announced that the Saint Paul Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on
the Dovintown Starion Area Plan. Notice of the public hearing was pubIished in the I.egal Ledger
on November 19, 2�9, and was mailed to the citywide Early Notificarion System fist and other
inierested pazties. �
Chair Alton read the rutes of psocerlure for the public hearina.
Ttte following people spoke.
1. Ms. Ellen McPazUan, Chair of the Lowertown Master P1an Task Force, said that she
gives her support for the downtown station azea plan because it reflects tLe community's
concerns and feedback t}uough the additions to Section 4.1 on preparing the I.owertown
Master Plan. She talked abaut Low thaz secuon of the plan effectively addresses many of
Lowertown residems' specific concems.
2. Mr. Paut Mohrbacher, with the Sc3euce Museum of Minnesota, said that 10 yeus ago the
Science Museum gave np their locaaon az fhe site of a downtown starion, so they could
move to the river. Less tban 5% of their visitors come by transit and 95% come by
automobile. He said that they aze clearly an automobile destination, but he hopes that the
development of LRT will change tLat. The downtown stations aze destinarion stafions
and the 4"' and Cedar station will help people find there way to the Scieace Muse�. Mr.
Motubacher gave a hazdy endorsement for the Downtown Station Area Plan.
3. Mr_ Kazri Plowman, Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce and a downtown resident,
said that wlule they were a litfle dissatisfied with the stakeholder pazticipation ia
comparison to the starion azea planning process for flie Universiry Avenue stations, they
do support mnch of the plan. Mr. Plowman believes that the summary of the Diamond
Products Task Force Report (p_ 9) should be removed &om the report. It is not consistent
with comments that aze made later in the report. Second, on the prolubition of single-use
parking (p. 20} - the public and privaze sector use single-use and surface lot parking as a
way to hold pazcels for long-term development. Finally, the plan's recommendations on
gronnd floor windows and active usages fail to recognize market constramu. The
Chamber is also providing written comments.
Chair Akon announced 8�at staff received threz (3) letters from the Saiut Paul Riverfront
Coxporation, Capitol River Councii and Coimcilmember Thune's Office.
MOTION: Commissinner Nelson moved m close the publrc hearing, kave the record apen for
ivritten tesfzmo�ry until 4:30 p.m. on Monday, December 2I, 2009, and to refer the matter back
to the Compreherrsive Planning Committee for review and recommeiulation. Commissioner
Faricy seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimousty on a voice vote.
V. Zoning Committee
SITE PLAN REVIEW — List of current applications_ (Tom BeacL, 651/26Er9086)
10-403
Tluee items will come before the staff Site Plan Review Committee on December 22, 2009. They
aze: Northem Metals Recycling Trailer Storage Yazd at 551 Bazge Channel Road; tiValgeen �2
at 2101 Ford Parkway; and Meffopolitan Council — E.S_, Force Main unprovement at 2898 Childs
Road.
OLD BUSINESS
#08-083-992 Laurel Apts Pazldna Lot #2 — Consider revocation of pazldng lot site plau
approved hme 11, 2008, for failure to meet condiuons of approval. 2057 Laurel Avenue.
(Tom Beach, 65I/266-9086)
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Commzttee's recnmmendakon to revoke
the parking lot site plan. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
rrEw sus�ss
#09-327-710 David Youmans — Condirional Use Permit for transitional housing facility for six
(6) or fewer residents. 680 Thomas Avenue, SW corner at St. Albans. (Sarah ZArn, 65126b-
6570)
MOTION: Commissioner Mortan moved the Zoning Committee's recommendarion to approve
the conditional use perneit subject ta additionad condilions. The motion carried unanimously
on a voice vote.
#09-328-553 Rav Matter — Establishment of legal nonconforming use status for excavating
business. 770 Brookline Sheet, NE corner at Springside. (Sarah Zorn, 651/266-6570)
Commissioner Faricy asked for clarification of City Attorney Peter Wazner's advice to the
Zoning Committee at the public hearing.
Commissioner Kiamer said that the Ciry Attomey laid out scenarios and akernavves for the
Zoning Committee to consider. The Zoning Committee's recommendation revised and refined
the staff's recommendation based in part on the City Attorney's input.
Commissioner Schertler asked staff to explain the difference between the Zoning Coaunittee's
recommendation and the stafPs recommendation.
Suah Zorn, PED staff said that the staff's recommendation originally was the fust condition
listed, allowing the business to continue as long as the applicant resides on premises. The Zoning
Committee debated further and added the addiuonal three (3) condiuons.
Commissioner Spaulding stated that he has understood that nonconformities aze more acceptable
if they are masked from public view, if they don't have a deaimental affect on neighboring
properties by being within an enclosed structm'e. The interpretation here is that if it is outside a
structure, it is ok and he would like to get ciarificaaon of that.
Commissioner Mugulies said that the Committee diswssed this issue at the meeting, irying to
discem the intent of the zoaing code.
10-403
VI.
Commissioner Kramer said that tlus was why the additionai condiaons were added - to make sure
that the nonconformiag activiiy remains in the current confines. He also noted that there is a
whole chapter on nonconforming uses, wluch sets a ciry poIicy thaz nonconforming uses can
continue imder certain coaditions.
Commissioner Gordon added that part of the discussion at the Zoning Committee meeting was to
get on the record tttat this case was being decided on its own lmique facts and zhere was no intent
to establish a precedent that would do away with the requiremeat that the use occur entirely
within an exisung suucture, but rather to interpret and apply the Zoning Code to- the umgue facts
presented by this case. A3so the record here at the Planning Commission should reflect that, so
that it not be misconstrued as establishing a precedent going forwazcL
Commissioner Smitten said tLat the last item at the Zoning Committee meeting was the hardship
piece. She asked for clarification about the wst to move the business as an element of
establishing bardslup.
Commissioner Morton said that tlus business has been at ttus locatian smce 1973; ttus is a lazge
pazcel of land (over three {3) acres); and having to move would put Mr. Matter out of business.
The Committee believed this established hardslrip.
MOTION: Cammusioner Morton moved the Zoning Commi#ee's recommendatlon to approve
the establishmerzt of legal nonconforming use status subject to additional cond'dions. The
motion carried unanimously on ¢ voice vote.
Minor Text Amendmenu for Chanters 60 and 61 of the Zoning Code - Recommendation to
release draft for public review and schedule a public heazing on Febrnary 5, 2010. (Kate Reilly,
651/266-6618)
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Commi#ee's recommendation to release
the proposed �onendment for pub&c review and set a public hearing at the Planning
Commission meeting on February 5, 2DI0. The mntion carried unanimousty on a voiee vote.
Commissioner Morton announced the items on the agenda for the next Zoning Comanttee
meeting on Tuesday, December 29, 2�9.
Comprehensive Planning Committee
Zonin Amendments to Saint Paul's Off-Sheet Pazkina Requirements and Desi� Standards —
Recommendarion to release draft for pnblic review and schedule a public hearing an 7anuary 22,
2010. (Merritt Cdapp-Smith, 651266-6547, and Tia Anderson, 651/266-5562)
Tia Anderson, PED staff gave a brief power paint piesentation about Saint Paul's OFF-Street
Pazking Requirements, an overview of public feedback and the pcoposed code amendmenu.
They received a�eat amommt of support for the changes in the off-street pazking requirements,
and support for the broader goaLs and objectives of the shuly_ The proposed amendments would
consolidate many of the vazions use requuements, xeduce those use requiremenu to beiter meet
average off-street parking demands as opposed to peak pazldng demands, enhance overall pazking
faciiity design and simplify the code.
4
10-403
In tern�s of residenual pazking requirements the proposal is to have a stepped approach for mulri-
family dwelling uniu, requuing more spaces for uniu with more bedrooms; and ttus did receive
broad support during the public diswssions. There were some concems raised by atfordable
housing advocates who cautioned against overburdening those types of developments.
Merritt Clapp-Smith, PED staff, said that they brought forwazd in the public diswssion the idea
of introducing a citywide pazking maximum. MaYimums aze something the city currentiy uses in
its 1TI zoning dishicu and in the Cen�al Corridor zoning overlay. There was good support for
doing parking maximums with the intent of trying to discourage people from over building
parldng when it is not needed. Ms. ClappSmith showed a sample table of the off-street parlang
changes. She talked about the different ways to reduce the minunum pazking requirement
through shazed pazking agreements, bicycle pazking, sbazed vehicle par2dng and for mixed-use
corridors. The mixed-use corridors received varying feedback. There is debate about how
bioadly this pazking reduction should apply: How many streets and how wide an azea from the
coxridor? This cvill be one of the items that generates more discussion.
Regazding enhanced landscaping requirements, there was very strong support for this. At least 15
square feet of interior landscaping would be required for every 100 squaze feet of paving for
puking facilities with more than twenry (20) parking spaces or 6,000 squaze feet, whichever is
less. The Department of Safety and Inspections staff have been encouraging tLe placement of
uees in parking lots, one (1) every 35 feet on average, which is close to one (1) shade tree per five
(5) pazking spaces. There was also interest in introducing a requirement for intemal walkways in
lazge parking lots.
Travel Demand Management (TDM) -- the proposed code aznendments have a requirement for
sites that aze going to be over 100 pazking spaces to work with Saint Paul Smart Trips to prepare
a travel demand management plan. The City would hold a financial guarantee that would be
released after two (2) yeazs based on showing the best effort to put together a TDM
implementation plan.
Commissioner Porter asked when the restaurant pazking demand counts were actually taken.
Ms. Clapp-Smith said that the counts for different eating places have been taken over a three (3)
yeaz period, so they have been continuing to collect different information. Ff anyone is interested
in seeing the spreadsheet table she can provide that.
M01TON: Commissioner Morton rnoved the Comprehensive Planning Cnmrnittee's
recammendntion to release the proposed mraendments for pub&c review and set a publac
hearing for January 22, 2009. Commusioner Wencl seconded the mntdon. The motion carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
V1I. Neighborhood Planning Committee
Commissioner Wencl had no report.
VIII. Communications Committee
There was no report.
10-403
1X. Task Force Reports
Commissioner Thao reported that the Hamline, Westem, and Vicxoria Steering Corri�ttee met on
Wednesday, Dec. 16`". Theie were some concerns about the timing of when these new stations
would be built But the steering committee is in place and they look forward to completing their
work in tlie coming year.
Commissioner Smitten announced that the Smith Avenue Redevelopment Corridor steering group
met with potentiai task force members. They aze looking for 15 people and about 50 people
showed up. The application deadline is December 31, 2009 and in 7anuary 2010 they will be
recommending those task farce members.
X. Old Busincss
None_
XI. New Business
None.
XII. Adjournment
Meeting adjo�uned az 939 a_ID_
Recorded and prepared by
Soaja Buder, Planning Commission Secretary
Planning and Economic Development Department,
City of Saint Paul
Respectfully submitted,
Approved
(Date)
i
�
l
I
Donna Dmmmond
Planning Director
PID�buUe[�plamm�g commission�December 18, 2009
Marilyn Portei .
Secretary of the Planning Commission
:�
10-403
CTTY OF SA1NT PAUL
Chrirtopner B- Colem¢n, Maynr
To:
From
Date:
Re:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNL\G & �
ECO�OMIC DEVELOPMEn7
Cecite Bedor, Director ��`�"'�
25Wes1FowzhSneef Telephone'65I-266-6626
SmraPaul, MN55102 Facsimde' 65b228-3341
Saint Paul Planning Commission
Comprehensive Planning Committee
December 16, 2009
Off-Street Parking Requirements and Design Standards Zoning Amendments —
Recommend Release for Public Hearin�
Background
in May 2009, the Planning Commission initiated a study of Saint Paul's ofF-street parking
requirements and design standards—Article II 63.200. Parkin� Requirements and Article III 63.300.
Off-Street Parkin� Facility Standards and Desi�n.
During the summer and early faii, PED and DSI staff prepared a comprehensive set of proposed
revisions to the City's off-street parking requirements after extensive review of Saint Paul's current
parking code, comparison to other cities' codes and national best practices, and in response to policy
changes adopted in the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan.
in early October, the proposed revisions were released for public review and comment, follawing
which PED staff conducted 14 public and stakeholder meetings and utilized the City's website to
solicit questions and feedback.
Public Feedback and Revised Parking Code Amendments
Overaii feedback was very positive on the proposed amendments to the Cit�/s off-street parking
requiremenis and design standards. In general, people understand and support the major objectives
of the revisions:
• Consolidating requirements to encourage reuse and redevelopment
• Reducing parking requirements to match average demand
• Enhancing parking lot design to increase environmentai stewardship and reduce blight _
• Encouraging efficient Iand use and supporting multi-modal transportation
StafF fine tuned the code amendments based on over 150 comments and questions received. These
revisions are noted and explained in the following three attachments.
Zonin� Code Text Amendments
This document shows all proposed parking code amendments, with strike outs representing deletions
and underlined text showing additions. The red text identifies changes made to the draft
10-403
�
�
F
�
amendments since the release for publ9c review in Octobee. These changes, made in response to
the pubtic feedback, are in the following pages and sections:
Page 6— Sec. 63.207(c) Conditions when minimum is exceeded
Page 6— Sec. 63.207(d) Ofif-street parking maximum .
Page 7— Sec. 63.207(a) Minimum Parking by Use: College, University_._
Page 7— Sec. 63.207(a) Minimum Parking by Use: Ctub, fraternal...
Page 9— Sec. 63.207(a) Minimum Parking by Use: Mortuary, fiunerai home
Page 9— Sec. 63.207(a) Minimum Parking by Use: Coffee shop, tea house
Page 9— Sec. 63.207(a) Minimum Parking by Use: Restaurants...
Page 9— Sec. 63.207{a) Minimum Parking by Use: Esta6lishment with liquor...ticense A&B...
Page 9— Sec. 63.207{a) Minimum Parking by Use: Dance hall, bingo...
Page 10—Sec. 63.207{a) Minimum Parking by Use: Wholesale establishment...
Page 12—Sec. 63.213 Preferential Parking Spaces
Page 15 —Sec. 63.205 Minimum Layout Dimensions
Page 16—Sec. 63.308 Maneuvering Lanes
Page 17—Sec. 63.310�e} Entrances and Exits
Page 17—Sec. 63.311 WheelStops
Page 18—Sec. 63.314{b) Screening landscaping
Page 18—Sec. 63.314(c) Interior landscape
Page 18 —Sec. 63.314(d) Tree plantings
Page 18—Sec.63.314{e) Internalwalkways
Page 21—Sec. 6Q.214 M. Mixed-use corridor
Page 23—Sec. 63.122(c)(3) Travel Demand Management—Progrem—Security agreement
Page 24 — Sec. 63.122(d )(3) Trave! Demand Management — Com pliance — Appeals
Off-Street Parkin� Code Revisions and Rationale Spreadsheets
These two spreadsheets explain ali proposed changes and the rationale, settion by section within the
OfF-Street Parking Code. The first spreadsheet is organized by code section, excluding tfie Sec.
63.207(a) Parking Requirements by Use table, which is detailed in the second spreadsheet. ln both
documents, RED text identifies changes made to the dreft amendmenfis since the release for public
revierv in October and biue hightighted rows indicate proposed key changes within the zoning code.
Aublic Inout Spreadsheet
This spreadsheet documents all comments and questions received during publit review, organized
into fopic categories by zoning code section. Within each category there is a Iist of all comments,
indicating the meeting, who said i#, and the use referred to (if applicable). To the right of each set of
comments on a subject is a summary of the commenfis and the resulting code updote — °as proposed"
if no change made OR if changed, update is explained in RED text. -
Recommendation
The Comprehensive Planning Committee recommends that the Pianning Commission release the
praposed Zoning Amendments to Saint Paul's Off-Street Parking Requirerrients and Design Standards
for public review and set a public hearing date for January 22, 2010.
10-403
To
From
Date:
CI'I'I' OF SAIN I' PAUL
Christophe� B. Coleraaq Mayor
Saint Paul Planning Commission
DEPARTIvfEISC OF P[,.4NNING & �
ECONOMIC DEVELOP'��'T ��
Cecile Bedm, Director
25R'esiForvlhSneet Telephone 6�1-i66-6626
SmntPau1,.19tii'S5102 Facsrmile:6�7-228-3341
Merritt Clapp-Smith and Tia Anderson, Planning Staff
October 8, 2009
Re: Study of Saint Paul Parking Requirements — Beginning of Public Discussion Phase
The Planning Commission, in May 2009, initiated a study of Saint Paul's off-street parking requirements and
design standards—Article II 63.200. Parkin� Requirements and Article III 63.300. Off-Street Parkin� Facility
Standards and Desi�n. Since that time, PED and DSI staff have worked to evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses ofthe current parking code and its compliance with the new Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan.
Based on research and extensive discussion, staff have prepared a comprehensive set of proposed revisions
to the City's off-street parking requirements and an explanation of those changes (enclosed code document
and tables describing the rationale for each proposed change).
The proposed parking revisions are designed to meet the following objectives:
• ijnplement parking-related strategies from the new Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan
• Better align parking requirements with demand
• Encourage efficient Iand use and reduce blight
• Encourage development J redevelopment / reuse
• Support multi-modal transportation options
• Increase environmental stewardship
• Simplifythe City's parking code
. Balance stakeholders'interests
The Comprehensive Pianning Committee reviewed the proposed revisions and supporting documents at its
October 6 meeting. Staff are now prepared to move forward with a series of puhiic and stakeholder
meetings in October and November (tentative schedule attached) to explain and discuss the proposed
changes and solicit feedback to assist in further revisions. Planning Commissioners are encouraged to
attend one of the public meetings. StafF will post the proposed revisions and supporting materials on the
Cit�s website (under `City Projects — Parking') and seek questions and comments in that forum as well.
Many of the proposed changes to the off-street parking requirements are straightforward and did not
result in any disagreement among staff. However, tfiere are a few important and difficult policy decisions
about which staff, the public and other stakeholders may disagree. During the public review process, staff
10-403
Memo to Planning Commission
RE: Proposed revisions to off-street parking requirements ,
Page 2 of 2
wili call attention to these items, which deserve open and thoughtful discussion. Staf€ wili outline the pros
and cons of these items and ask for feedback to inform policy makers.
Following the public discussion period, stafF wiil make additional adjustments to the ordinance language
and bring a proposed set of parking code amendments to Pianning Commission for formal public hearing in
early 201d.
PED stafF leading this project, Merritt Clapp-Smith (651.265.6547) and Tia Anderson (651.266.6562), will
present the highlights of the parking code changes under consideration at the October 30, 2009 Planning
Commission meeting.
Enclosed documents — for Planning Commissioners who did not receive them already in the Comprefiensive
Planning Committee packet:
: Proposed.off-Street Parking Code Revisions document. Highlighted text indicates areas of
change, underlined text shows additions, and strikeouts indicate deletions.
• OfF-Street Parking Code— Key Changes spreadsheet. Explains proposed changes and the
rationale for significant revisions within the Off-Street Parking Code.
• Off-Streei Parking Code— Revisions and Rationale spreadsheet. Explains all proposed
changes and the rationale, section by section in the code (except Section 63.207, see below). -
Shaded rows highlight the more substantive changes.
• Parking Requirements by Use— Revisions and Rationale spreadsheet. Explains all proposed
changes to Section 63.207, the parking requirements by use table, and rationale. Shaded
rows highlight tF�e more substantive changes.
• Schedule for Parking Study
10-403
egian Watershed District
1410 Energ,y Park Dr., Suite 4 St. Paul, MN 55108
Phone: (651) 644-8888 Fax: (651) 644-8894 www.capitolregionwd.org
Office of the City Council,
c/o Merrit-Clapp Smith
310 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd W
Saint Paul, MN 55102
RE: Comments on Proposed Off-Street Parking Code Amendments
Dear Ms. Clapp-Smith:
Capitol Region Watershed District has reviewed the Proposed Off-Street Pazking Code Amendments dated
Mazch 12, 2010. CRWD staff would like to commend the City of St. Paul for examining the existing
requirements for off-street pazking, and updating the code to reflect trends in transportation use, and the need
to mitigate the effects of impervious surface on aesthetics, air and water quality, and the environment in
generai. In addition, CRWD provides the following comments and recommendations for your consideration:
1. Table 63.207, paLes 7-10
CRWD Comments:
Table 63.207 provides minimum pazking guidelines by land use classification. It appeazs that in
neazly all situations, the formulas for calculafing the required number of spaces will result in less
pazking spaces required for each land use. CRWD supports this change as it will result in less
impervious surface constructed as part of pazking code requirements, and therefore less
stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces is a major source of pollutants to
surface water resources.
2. Section 63.302. Site Plan Review, part (e)
Code Language: "Location and design of stormwater management features such as stormwater
landscaping, rain gazdens, bio-retention areas, swales, infiltrarion trenches, sand filters, and porous
pavement, including construction details where agplicable."
CRWD Comments:
CRWD supports inclusion of this language, as it may promote the awareness and use of innovarive
stormwater management practices. In order to allow practices not specifically listed, CRWD
recommends the following language change: "Locarion and design of stormwater management
features sxebras including but not limited to, stormwater landscaping, rain gardens, bio-retention
areas, swales, infiltration trenches, sand filters, and porous pavement, including conshuction
details where applicable."
3. Section 63312. Setback.
Code Language: "...a guest parking azea is exempt from setback requirements for parking spaces
and it may be paved with gravel."
CRWD Co»unents:
"Our mission is to pratect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District. "
May 5, 2010
10-403
The fine particles contained in gravel surfaces contribute to the turbidity of stormwater, degrade
water quality and aze difficult to remove once suspended in stormwater. Gravel surfaces are
generally equivalent to paved surfaces in terms of imperviousness. CRWD recommends
eliminating language that allows For the use of gravel surfaces under any conditions.
4. Section b3.314. Landscaaine. Part (c) Interior landscaue.
Code Language: "Pazking facilities...shall provide fifteen (15) square feet of interior landscaped
azea for every one hundred (100) square feet of paving."
CRWD Comments:
CRWD supports the proposed increase in required interior landscaping requirements. However,
often times these planting areas aze designed as elevated islands with raised curbs. This puts an
increased strain on plants during dry periods, may require installation of wasteful irrigation
systems and does not fully utilize the plants' ability to clean and absorb stormwater. CRWD
recommends that requirements included in Section 63319. Stormwater runoff be incorporated into
all landscaping requirements on all feasible sites
5. Section 63.314. Landscapina. Part (d) Tree Plantines.
Code Language: "Trees shall be planted in...at least three (3) feet in soil depth and one hundred
(100) square feet in area as measured from the interior edge of curbing or paving, wifh a minimum
dimension of four (4) feet wide."
CRWD Comments:
Soil volume is an integral part of tree health, but without adequate water, the trees may be under
significant stress that will hinder growth and overall tree health. See Comment 4.
6. Section 63.319. Stormwater runoff. Part (a)
Code Language: "Pazking facilities sha11 be designed in accordance with best management
practices to comply with required local and regional water quality, volume, and rate control
standazds.
CRWD Comments:
Currently, there are not any required local and regional water quality, ar volume control standards
that apply to sites between `/a acre and 1 acre of land disturbance. The requirement to control the
rate of water discharge from a site is important for reducing flooding and ensuring pipe capacities
aze not exceeded, but does not result in significant water quality improvements. CRWD
recommends incorporating a volume reduction standard into the parking code requirements.
CRWD is currently conducting an assessment of sites less than one acre to determine the
appropriate disturbance threshold and feasibility of various volume reduction standards on small
sites.
7. Section 63.319. Stormwater runoff. Part (b)
Code Language: "...when the minimum required pazking ...is exceeded by more than four (4)
parking spaces... thirty (30) square feet of stormwater landscaping shall be provided per pazking
space over the minimum required parking.
CRWD Comments:
CRWD fully supports the City's goal and forward thinking in defining and requiring stormwater
landscaping in the proposed code amendments. However, CRWD is unfamiliaz with how often
development sites request to install more pazking spaces than required, and concemed that the
implementation of this requirement with result in a disproportionately small amount of stormwater
treatment. For example, a 0.9 acre parking lot with the required minimum spaces would not
require any water quality treahnent, but a 0.25 acre parking lot with 16 spaces more than the
minunum would require 480 squaze feet of stormwater landscaping.
"Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the wcrter resources of the Capitol Region Watershed Distrrct. "
10-403
Another concern is that requiring an azea of stormwater landscaping in squaze feet does not specify
how deep the azea should be, or what volume of runoff in cubic feet should be treated. This could
lead to confusion in the design and review process, and result in a highly variable quantity of water
quality treatment.
CRWD recommends that stormwater landscaping requirements reference a volume of stormwater
runoff based on the total impervious surface of the parking lot (i.e. Area X 1" =Volume). T'his
would allow for less confusion and more flexibility for designers and applicants to achieve the
code requirements.
8. Section 63.319. Stormwater runoff. Part (b), Item 2
Code Language: "Stormwater landscaping shall not be required if located in areas with
hydrologic soil group D(Clay); groundwater or bedrock within 3 feet of the bottom of the
infiltration azea; nearby wells or utilities; or potential contamination."
CRWD Comments:
CRWD recommends filtration through the use of underdrain systems in areas of clay, bedrock, or
contamination. This is also recommended in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual.
9. Section 60.213.L.
Code Language: "Landscaping, stormwater. Landscaping that integrates stormwater
management into the aesthetic amenities of landscaping. Stormwater landscaping shall inciude
recessed landscaped areas for water runoff collection, graded areas that direct runoff flows to
landscaped areas designed for water collection, fandscaped areas designed for temporary ponding
after storms, and use of highly permeable soils conducive to water drainage."
CRWD Comment:
CRWD recommends the foIlowing language modifications: "Landscaping, stormwater.
Landscaping that integrates stormwater management into the aesthetic amenities of landscaping.
Stormwater landscaping shali include but is not limited to recessed landscaped azeas for
stormwater runoff collection, graded areas that direct runoff £�s to landscaped azeas designed
for •°°'°-���"°�'a'� int"dtration, landscaped azeas designed for temporary ponding after storms,
and use of highly permeable soils conducive to wate�i�age stormwater infiltrarion. Plant
species shall be chosen based on t6eir ability to tolerate both drought and inundated
condirions.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Yhe proposed Off-Street Pazking Code
Amendments. CRWD staff support the efforts of the City of St. Paul to incorporate sustainable stormwater
design practices, reduce impervious surfaces, and add valuable green space to the existing parking
requirements. If you have any questions regazding these comments or stormwater management, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
" Forrest J. K�e�
Permit Prograzn Coordinator
cc: Josh Williams, City of St. Paul PED
Phil Belfiori, City of St. Paul Water Resource Coordinator
W:\07 Pmgams�Prnnitting�2010\Off-SVeet Pazking Code Amendments.doc
"Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capital Region Watershed District. "
10-403
,��,���F�,.
��:��
�' ��� � � ; �u;,�
s-. anuL Smari Trips
April 22, 2010
Office of the City Council
310 City Hall
15 Kellogg Blvd W
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Councilmembers,
55 E STH 5T. SU�TE 202
St PAUL, MN SSt�i
I'm writing on behalf of the St. Paul Transportation Management Organization (TMO), d/b/a St.
Paul Smart Trips, to provide comments regarding the proposed off-street parking code
amendments. St. Paul Smart Trips is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that improves access
and mobility for those who travel in and around Saint Paul. The supply of parking is intricately
linked to access and mobility. We support managing parking supply to achieve equity between
supply and demand and thereby encourage a balance between all modes of travel.
We offer our support for the following elements of the parking code amendments:
1. Article II. 63.200 Sec. 63.206 (d) Shared parking
Facilitating shared parking amongst businesses promotes e�cient /and use and can help
align pa�king supply with parking demand. We support the updating and simplification of
the shared parking formulas which will encourage better use of this mechanism.
2. Article II. 63.200 Sec. 63207 (b) Off-street parking reduc[ions
We support the provisions to reduce the number of required parking spaces and are
pleased that the reductions are tied to travel demand management strategies such as
biking and shared vehicle use.
3. Consolidating and streamlining the parking requirements
We supporf the move towards consolidated and simplified parking requirements and
acknowledge the positive impact that this will have on reuse and redevelopment in the
city.
4. Article II. 63.200 Sec. 63.210. Bicycle parking.
Ubiquitous bicycle parking helps to encourage an increase in bicycle mode share.
Requiring a minimum of bike parking based on the number of motor vehicle spaces will
encourage a prevalence of bike parking across the city. The ability to substitute a
percentage of the minimum requirements with a prescribed level of bicycle parking offers
an incentive to go beyond the minimum. Not all bike parking is created equally and
quality and security impacts efficacy. Therefore we support the guidance the code
provides on the location and design of bike pa�king including: visibility, security,
maintenance and lighting.
10-403
5. Article II. 63.200 Sec. 63.211. Shared vehicle parking.
Public shared vehicle programs enab/e households and individuals to downsize or forgo
owning a vehicle. Tying a reduction in parking spaces to on-site car sharing will
encourage an expansion of shared vehicle hubs' in St. Paul.
6. Article II. 63200 Sec. 63.212. Mixed-use corridors.
We disagree with the Planning Commission's recommendation to remove the mixed use
corndor reduction eligibilrty from the proposed amendments.
Mixed-use corridors promote walking, biking, and transit use by positioning a variety of
land-uses in close proximity. Tying parking reductions to mixed-use corridors helps to
support density in these corridors by encouraging e�cient land use. The higher density,
mixed-use development that is appropriate for our mixed-use corridors is more expensive
than single-story, single-use development. A parking reduction would serve to bring down
costs and increase the feasibility of developing at higher densities.
7. Article III. 63.300 Sec. 63.310. Entrances and exits.
We support the amended language that calls for minimizing curb cuts as the prevalence
of curb cuts undermines walkabilify and safety by increasing interactions between
vehicles and pedestrians.
8. Article III. 63.300 Sec. 63.314 (e). Internal walkways.
We support requiring internal walkways for pa�king faciiities over 125,000 as a strategy
for improving walkability. Requiring the walkways to provide access to parking areas as
well as the public sidewalk system on adjacent streets is especially imporfant for
promoting transportation options.
9. Article I. 63.100. Section 63.122. Travel demand management.
Travel Demand Management (TDM) plans are important too/s formanaging the impact
that land uses, particu/arly fhose that are significant trip generators, have on our city. The
TDM requirement as proposed will enable the city to encourage a balance amongst
modes that will serve to limit the congestion and air quality impacts associated with
significant single occupant vehicle (SOV) trip generation.
We're pleased that the Planning Commission supports the proposed TDM plan
requirement and we support fhe revised code language.
We offer the following recommendations for strengthening the amendments:
t. Address parking issues in downtown through a downtown specific parking study
Parking supply significantly impacts the viability and vibrancy of an area. As the
economic and cultural center of St. Paul, downtown needs its own study to assess how
parking supply can support economic development goals.
10-403
2. Article II. 63.200 Sec. 63207 (c) Off-street parking maximum
We recommend establishing a uniform maximum across a!1 uses and we recommend a
lowermaximum to encourage more dense development.
3. Article II. 63.200 Sec. 63.207 (d). Conditions when minimum parking exceeded.
We recommend providing some clarification as to how the provisions for exceeding the
minimum are related to proposed parking supply and demand. In this instance, requiring
a TDM plan would help a developer or business befter understand projected demand and
assess whether or not exceeding the minimum is necessary.
4. Article II. 63.200 Sec. 63.212. Preferential parking spaces.
We recommend tying the provision of preferential parking spaces to a TDM plan so that
o�ce, industrial and institutional uses identify strategies to promote and monitor these
spaces to assure maximum usage.
We appreciate the initiative and effort that PED undertook to amend the parking code and the
steps that these amendments take towards balancing parking supply and demand in St. Paul.
Regards,
Jessica Treat
Executive Director