Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-19 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March19, 2013 7:00PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a.March5,2013 5.Public Hearings a.7:00 p.m. or later: 3M Company Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), for a proposed Building at the Northeast Corner of McKnight Road and Conway Avenue b.7:00 p.m. or later: Variance Requests for a Wetland and Shoreland Ordinance Waiver and a Swimming Pool Fence Exemption, 660 Eldridge Avenue East 6.New Business a.Resolution of Appreciation for Joe Boeser b.Commission Handbooks for New Members (to be handed out) c.Oath of Office 7.Unfinished Business a.Updated Schedule for the Planning Commission’s Attendance at City Council Meeting 8.Visitor Presentations 9.Commission Presentations a.Commission report for the March 11, 2013city council meeting.Commissioner Trippler was scheduled to attend.Theitemreviewed was the Havencrest Preliminary Plat. b.Commission representation for the city council meeting of March 25, 2013. Commissioner Desaiis scheduled to attend. There are currently no items scheduled for review. 10.Staff Presentations 11.Adjournment DRAFT MINUTESOF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2013 1.CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Commissionwas held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:00p.m.by ActingChairperson Desai. 2.ROLL CALL a.Welcome new Planning Commissioners John Donofrio and Bill Kempe Paul Arbuckle, CommissionerPresent Al Bierbaum, CommissionerPresent Tushar Desai,CommissionerPresent John Donofrio, CommissionerPresent Larry Durand, CommissionerPresent Absent Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Bill Kempe, CommissionerPresent Absent Dale Trippler, Commissioner Absent Stephen Wensman, Commissioner Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA CommissionerBierbaummoved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by CommissionerDurand.Ayes –All The motion passed. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES CommissionerArbucklemoved to approve theFebruary 5, 2013,PCminutes as submitted. Seconded by CommissionerBierbaum.Ayes –Acting Chairperson Desai, Commissioner’s Arbuckle, Bierbaum, Durand Abstention –Commissioner’s Donofrio & Kempe The motion passed. March 5, 2013 1 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes 5.PUBLIC HEARING a.Havencrest Preliminary Plat, 2292 County Road D East i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the presentation on the Havencrest Preliminary Plat and answered questions of the commission. ii.Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer, answered questions of the commissionregarding grading, drainage and street maintenance during construction. iii.Brent Hislop,representing Powerline, Inc.,the applicant for the proposal,addressed the commissionregarding the Havencrest Preliminary Plat proposal. Acting Chairperson Desai opened the public hearing. Nobody came forward to address the commission. Acting Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bierbaum moved to approvethe Havencrest preliminary plat located at 2292 County Road D East, subject to the following conditions: 1.Comply with theconditions of approval in the engineering report by Jon Jarosch, Maplewood Staff Engineer, dated February 25, 2013. 2.Comply with the conditions of approval in the Environmental Review by Shann Finwall dated February 25, 2013. 3.Before a building permit is issued for proposed Lot 1, the builder of that lot shall remove the shed which appears to belong to the owner of 2280 County Road D. This shed may be relocated to 2280 County Road D, provided it meets all city setback and building size requirements and allbuilding code requirements. Seconded by Commissioner Durand.Ayes –All The motion passed. 6.NEW BUSINESS a.Arkwright/Sunrise Area Street Improvements, Project Update and Preliminary Design Concept i.Assistant City Engineer, Steve Love gave the report on the Arkwright/Sunrise Area Street Improvements, Project Update and Preliminary Design Concept and answered questions of the commission. No action was required. 7.UNFINISHEDBUSINESS None. 8.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. March 5, 2013 2 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes 9.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a.Commission report for the February 11, 2013, city council meeting. Chairperson Fischer was scheduled to attend. Staff reported that the item reviewed was the 3M Company EAW and authorization to publish the document for public comment. b.Commission report forthe February 25, 2013, city council meeting. Commissioner Wensman was scheduled to attend. Staff reported that items reviewed were the 2012 Planning Commission Annual Report and the Land Use Plan Amendment from P, Park to LDR, low density residential fora parcel in Gladstone near Gloster Park. c.Commission representation for the city council meeting of March 11, 2013.Commissioner Trippler is scheduled to attend;however, staff will present the planning commission report to the city council. The item scheduled for review is the Havencrest Preliminary Plat. 10.STAFFPRESENTATIONS a.Updated Schedule for the Planning Commission’s Attendance at City Council Meetings i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand discussed the schedule to attend city council meetings as the planning commission representative. 11.ADJOURNMENT Acting Chairperson Desaiadjourned the meeting at 8:22p.m. March 5, 2013 3 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes MEMORANDUM TO:James Antonen, City Manager FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:3M Company EnvironmentalAssessment Worksheet(EAW) Public Input DATE:March 6, 2013 INTRODUCTION 3M Company is planning to build a new Research & Development Building and related parking at its Maplewood Campus. The size of the project requires preparation of a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The City of Maplewood is acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the EAW. 3M and its consultant, TKDA, have completed a draft EAW. The city’s engineering andplanning staff, planning commission and environment and natural resources commission reviewed the draft EAW in January and provided comments. TKDA revised the draft to incorporate additional information and address issues identified by the staff and commissions. Thepublic hearing scheduled at the planning commission meeting on March 19 will provide an opportunity for residents and neighbors to give comments or ask questions on the project. Attendees can present verbal or written comments or questions at the public hearing, or send them to the city. All comments will be considered as official comments on the EAW, and 3M and the city will respond to all comments and questions. Please refer to the attached memorandum from Sherri Buss of TKDA, from which these excerpts have been taken. NO ACTION NEEDED There is no Recommendationrequired to be made by the planning commission. The purpose of this public hearing is simply to get comments, questions and input from the public regarding the EAW. p:36\3M Building Proposal NE McKnight and Conway\Public Hearing Cover Memo PC Report 3 19 13 te Attachment: 1.Memorandum from Sherri Buss of TKDA datedMarch 6, 2013 2.3M EAW MEMORANDUM TO:James Antonen, City Manager FROM:Michael Martin,AICP, Planner Charles Ahl,Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Consideration of Variances to the Wetland and Shoreland Ordinances and Pool Fence ExceptionRequest for the Construction of a Swimming Pool LOCATION:660 Eldridge Avenue East VOTE REQUIRED:Simple Council Majority Required for Approval of Variances DATE:March12, 2013 INTRODUCTION Amanda and Joseph Schneiderareproposing to install an in-ground swimming pool within the backyard of their home at 660 Eldridge Avenue East. Their entire backyard is within thebuffer areas as determined by thewetland and shoreland ordinances. This means the city council would need to approve variancesto allow for the construction of a swimming pool. Request The applicant is requesting the following: A 46-foot shoreland buffer variance from Oehrline’s Lake, also on the southwest side of the Schneider’s property. The code requires a 75-foot setback from this Class 4 Public Water body. The applicant is proposing a 29-foot setback from the water’s edge. A21-foot wetland buffer variance from the Manage B wetlandon the southwestside of the Schneider’sproperty. The code requires a 50-foot buffer from the Manage Bwetland, adjacent to a lake.The applicant is proposing a 29-foot setback from the wetland. The applicant is requesting an exception to the requirement of installing a four-foot fence around the pool and instead would installa pool cover. City code allows thecitycouncil to consider exceptions to this requirement. DISCUSSION Shoreland Ordinance Lake Oehrline is a Class 4 Public Water. The shoreland ordinance requires structures (including pools) to have a setback of 75 feet to the ordinary high water mark ofa Class 4 Public Water. The maximum percentage of impervious surface for a single family waterfront lot is 30 percent, with the possibility of increasing that to 40 percent with stormwater best practices approved by the cityengineer. The house is located within 76 feet and the deck is located within 57 feet fromthe ordinary high water mark of Lake Oehrline. City staff calculates the dry land of the lot to be 17,700 square feet in area with 5,875 square feet of impervious surface coverage (33.2 percent). The lot currently exceeds the shoreland structure setback requirements of 75 feet to the ordinary high water mark and the impervious surface coverage maximums of 30 percent. The pool will be located within 29 feet of the lake and will require a 46-foot shoreland structure setback variance. As part of the applicant’s current plans, they are removing 200 square feet of existing concrete. Even with this consideration, city staff calculates the impervious surface coverage increasing to 38.4 percent and will require an 8.4 percent impervious surface variance. The impervious surface variance can be avoided with the removal of existing impervious surface, or approval of stormwater best practices to allow for impervious surface bonuses.Staff recommends conditioning approval of a setback variance to ensure the applicant either reduces the impervious surface amount to 30 percent or less or works with the city engineer to offset the increased impervious surface as allowed by city code. This recommended condition is stated within the environmental report attached to this memo. Wetland Ordinance Lake Oehrline is also classified as a Manage B wetland (entire lake is a wetland). The wetland ordinance requires a 50 foot buffer for Manage B wetlands. The house is located within 76 feet and the deck is located within 57 feet of the wetland. The lawn area adjacent the wetland is almost completely mowed, with four feet of rock lined shore. The pool will be constructed within 29 feet of the wetland and will require a 21 foot wetland buffer variance. The house was built prior to the City’s shoreland and wetland ordinance requirements. It is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot with lawn maintained up to the edge of the lake. Mitigation Strategies City staff worked with the applicant on mitigation strategies that would reduce the impacts of the pool construction to the lake and wetland. The mitigation strategies chosen by the applicant include the installation of a 15-foot-wide buffer planting along at least 75 percent of the shoreline and the removal of impervious surface. Buffer Planting Design:Maplewood’s wetland ordinance states that a mitigated wetland buffer must be planted with native vegetation. The March 5, 2013, landscape buffer design submitted by the applicant mixes native and nonnative plants. The buffer is designed more as a garden rather than a naturalized buffer planting. While the design has a nice mix of shrubs and perennials, it does not meet the requirements of being a native vegetated buffer. There is opportunity for aesthetic plantings in designing a native buffer, as long as the functionality of the buffer is met including root structures are adequate to hold the soil, buffer provides habitat for native insects and wildlife (thus mostly native plants), and vegetation slows and filters stormwater runoff. For additional staff comments on the buffer planting design, please refer to the attached environmental report attached to this memo. Pool Fence Exception Theapplicantisrequestingthecitycouncilgrantanexceptiontothecity’spoolfence requirement.The city code currently requirespoolsbesurroundedwithanon-climbableorchain linkfenceofatleastfourfeetinheight.Alternativestothefencerequirement,suchasthe applicant’sproposaltouseapoolcover,maybeconsideredasanoptionbutshallbesubjectto reviewandapprovalbythecitycouncil. Thepoolcoverbeingproposedwouldmeetsafetyandweight-bearingstandardssostaffwould becomfortablewithitsuse.Theapplicantdidstateintheirletter,attachedtothismemo,they preferredacoveroverafencebecauseofestablishedwildlifemigrationpatterns.Ifafencewas required,becauseofwetlandandshorelandsetbackrequirements,itwouldneedtobeinstalled asclosetothepoolaspossible,whichwouldleaveplentyofmovementareabetweenthelake andpoolareaforwildlife. Engineering Comments Refer to the report by Jon Jaroschof the Maplewood Engineering Department dated March 12, 2013.Mr. Jarosch’sconditions noted in his report should be made conditions of this project. Building Official’s Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments: Must meet all building code requirements. Environmental Planner’s Comments Refer to the report by Shann Finwall and Virginia Gaynor dated March 12, 2013.Ms. Finwall and Ms. Gaynor’s conditions noted in their report should be made conditions of this project. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.Adopt the resolutionapproving ashorelandsetbackvariance from Oehrline’s Lake –a Class 4 Public Water.Approval is based on the following reasons: A.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the shorelandsetbackrequirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. B.Approval of the requested shorelandsetbackvariance would benefit the adjacent lake becausethe site will be planted with additional buffer plantings. C.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. D.TheMinnesota Department of Natural Resourceshas reviewedthe applicant’s plansand does not require a permitor have any state statutes that prevent the pool from being built. Approval of the shorelandsetbackvariance shall be subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in the EngineeringReview report by Jon Jaroschandin Shann Finwalland Virginia Gaynor’s Environmental Review. 2.Adopt the resolution approving a wetland buffer variance from the Manage B wetland adjacent to a lake. Approval is based on the following reasons: A.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. B.Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent wetland becausethe site will be planted with additional buffer plantings. C.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. D.The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewedthe applicant’s plansand had no concerns and does not require a permit. Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in the EngineeringReview report by Jon Jarosch and in Shann Finwalland Virginia Gaynor’s Environmental Review. 3.Approve the applicant’s requestfor an exception from the city’s pool fence requirement to allow the use of a pool cover.The pool cover alternative is approved because the applicant has shown that it is designed to meet the safety and weight-bearing requirements of the American Society of Testing and Materials. CITIZENS' COMMENTS City Staff surveyed the owner of the 35 properties within 500 feet of the site for their comments about the proposal. Of thesevenreplies, fourwas in favor and three had general comments. In Favor We have no objection to the location of the swimming pool but we doubt that an automatic pool cover would be safer than a high fence. A swimming pool is an attraction to neighborhood children but other swimming pools in this neighborhood have not been a problem. (Karen Bade, 691 Eldridge Avenue East) Duane and I have no objection to our neighbors at 660 Eldridge Avenue East building a pool to their specifications. (Duane and Carol Brekken) I have no objections to this proposal if it is OK with their immediate next door neighbors on the right and left of them. (Donna Larson, 618 County Road B East) I am OK with project (comments received via phone call) (J. L. Zollinger, 2138 Greenbrier Street North) Comments Project may be OK provided the bottom of the pool will be above the high water elevation of the lake in order to avoid water problems. Setback from lake not ideal, but OK. A pool cover is needed for safety. (Floyd Erickson, 2094 Edgerton Street North) Concerned with precise property lines and wanting to make sure irons are in correct location to accurately site the pool. (comments received via phone call) (Steven Favilla, 670 Eldridge Avenue East) We received you letter regarding the Variance and Pool Fence Exemption Request.Here are some questions first: 1.Are there liability concerns not only for the homeowner but also for the city for approving a Pool Fence Exemption? 2.How close are the other pools around the lake? What is the precedence that is mentioned in the letter? 3.I am surprised that breaching the lake and wetland setback is being entertained given freshwater management practices today -as an Architect that is constantly designing buildings to meet setback requirements where is the hardship here?? 4.As a mother of (3) young children in the neighborhood --How does an Automatic pool cover work?? As I understand someone still needs to remember to close the cover?? I realize that we are close to the lake but there is zero entry opportunities --the pool has a deep end --having had my youngest daughter nearly drown last summer in a pool while I was nearby --I am not comfortable with a pool without a fence around it. My parents have an auto pool cover for when not in use as well as the fence --belts and suspenders. I think that the fence as drawn would impact their views --however a nicely designed fence just around the pool deck area would be more appealing and won'tinterrupt the turtle breeding grounds like shown in the attached diagram?? 5.Are the adjacent neighbors also in agreement of the no fence exemption like they are the setback? 6.Is installing a pool a hardship?? I get that the property is already non-conforming but…just asking thequestion. Closing Comments -- 1.I think if they want a pool great --but please fence it!!! 2.I am in a quandry over the setback breach --as an Architect again we have to work within those day in and day out. Would love to hear your thoughts on this. 3.I am not really opposed to them having a pool --sounds like fun --our neighborhood is full of them just trying to wrap my head around these requests. (Nicole Thompson, 699 Eldridge Avenue East) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 0.61acres Existing Use: Single family home SURROUNDING LAND USES North:Single family homes South:Lake Oehrline East:Single family homes West:Single family homes PLANNING Land Use Plan: LDR(low density residential) Zoning: R1(single dwelling) Criteria for Variance Approval Section 44-13 of the city code allows the city council to grant variances. All variances must follow the requirements provided in Minnesota State Statutes. State law requires that variances shall only be permitted when they are found to be: 1.In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control; 2.Consistent with the comprehensive plan; 3.When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties” means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alterthe essential character of the locality. Criteriafor Wetland Buffer Variance Approval Section 12-310of the city code allows the city council to grant variancesto wetland buffers. All variances must follow the requirements provided in Minnesota StateStatutes. The council may grant a wetland buffer variance according to the language below: (1)Procedures. Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows: a.The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. b.Before the city council acts on a variance, the environmental and natural resources commission will make a recommendation to the planning commission, who will in turn make a recommendation to the city council. The planning commission shall hold a publichearing for the variance. The city shall notify property owners within 500 feet of the property for which the variance is being requested at least ten days before the hearing. c.The city may require the applicant to mitigate any wetland, stream, or buffer alteration impacts with the approval of a variance, including, but not limited to, implementing one or more of the strategies listed in subsection12-310(e)(4) (mitigation). d.To approve a variance, the council must make the following findings as depicted in Minn. Stats.§ 44-13: 4.In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control; 5.Consistent with the comprehensive plan; 6.When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties” means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Criteria forPool Fence Exception Section12-502outlines the requirements for the installation of pools, including the need for a fence. (8) All pools shall be surrounded with a non-climbable or chain link fence of at least four feet in height. The walls of an above-ground pool may substitute for a fence, provided the pool walls are at least four feet in height and the pool has a removable ladder, a self-closing/self-latching gate or some other means to prevent access. A fence surrounding a yard may also be used to meet this requirement, subject to these requirements. Alternatives to the fence requirement, such as a proposal to use a pool cover or some other means of swimming-pool protection, shall be considered an exception request and shall be subject to review and approval by the city council. APPLICATION/DECISION DEADLINE City staffreceived the complete application and plans for this proposal on January 28, 2013. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. However, prior to a scheduled February 19, 2013 planning commission meeting the applicant requested an extension to rework the proposed site plan. This granted the city an additional 60 days for review, while leaving the city the option of extending an additional 60 days if needed. The deadline for city action on this proposal is May 28, 2013. p:sec17\660 Eldridge\660 EldridgePool Wetland_ShorelandBuffer Variance_PC_ENR_0021913 Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Future Land Use Map 3.Zoning Map 4.Wetland Map 5.Applicant’s Letter of Request dated March 5, 2013 6.Site Plan 7.Landscape plan, dated March 5, 2013 8.Engineering Plan Review, dated March 13 2013 9.Environmental Plan Review, dated March 13, 2013 10.Shoreland Buffer Variance Resolution 11.Wetland Buffer Variance Resolution Attachment 1 660 Eldridge 660 Eldridge Avenue Location Map Attachment 2 660 Eldridge 660 Eldridge Avenue Land Use Map - LDR, low density residential Attachment 3 660 Eldridge 660 Eldridge Avenue Zoning Map - R1, single dwelling Attachment 4 660 Eldridge Manage B Wetland 660 Eldridge Avenue Wetland Map Zoning code variance application – 660 Eldridge Ave E, Maplewood, MN 55117 1b. Practical difficulties means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Submit a statement showing how you would meet these two findings. We would like to use our property, located at 660 Eldridge Ave E, in a reasonable manner by installing an in-ground 18x36 foot pool and are requesting the following hardship variances/exemptions for our existing non-conforming property: 1) 14’ wetland buffer, 2) 39’ shore land setback and 3) pool fence exemption. Note: no variance is being requested related to impervious soil ratio constraints as we will be under the 30% impervious after the installation of the pool. If a variance is granted, we will not unreasonably impact/alter the essentialcharacter of the locality or the neighborhoodnor impact the adjacent wetland. Approximately 20% of the nearby homes, including several on lake Oehrline,have existing in-ground pools ensuring we would not be an anomaly. Maplecrest is a small tightknit community, attached are 5 lettersof variance support(refer to tab 3). These letters come from adjacent neighbors, the head of the lake association and other lakeside home owners. The pool planand landscape are designed to negate any impact to the wetland. The existing landscape includes plants,small trees, significant vegetation and up to 4 feet of rock lined shore to preserve the look, integrity and safety of the wildlife habitat. As a further mitigation we will install a 15’ vegetated border beyond the existing shoreline landscape which willsignificantly slowthe runoff into the lake that exists today. The 15’ border will consistof a mixture of 2-12’ high shrubs such as sumac low-grow, winterberry, fragrant sumac, nannyberry, and high brush American cranberry. A variety of perennials, such as one eyed susan’s, will also be planted in the 15’ border to increase the visual appeal of the shoreline. In addition to slowing runoff into the lake, we are hopeful that our 15’ border will promote our neighbors along the lake to grow out their grass, increase plantings and reduce their runoff into the lake as well. Finally, included are soil test results (refer to tab 6) demonstrating there would be no water table issues with a 5-foot deep pool further ensuring no impact to the immediate environment. The pool will be fit with an auto cover for safety. As demonstrated in tab 7, the auto cover provides a high levelof protection, more difficult to circumvent than a fence in many ways. The auto cover is nearly impenetrable protecting neighbors, kids and others from the pool. Pools can also be unexpectedly dangerous for wildlifesuch as turtles or other small mammals who often are fatally trapped in pools without an auto cover. Additionally, a fence could interruptlong heldspring turtle breedingpatternsand would negatively impact the view we have of lake Oehrline. For all of these reasons we feel an auto cover is the best option for our situation. In conclusion, if our variance application is approved, our mitigations will significantly improve the environment via less run off into the lake, will improve the look of the shoreline and will hopefully promote many of our neighbors along the lake to follow our lead with plantings/buffers to reduce their run off into the lake. Thank you in advance for your consideration, please contact us with any questions or follow up you require @ 612-963- 4970. Sincerely, Amanda & Joseph Schneider Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: 660 Eldridge Avenue In-Ground Swimming Pool Installation OWNER: Amanda & Joseph Schneider COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. DATE: 3-12-2013 PLAN SET: Drawing Dated 3-5-2013 OTHER: Impervious Surface Calculations The applicant is proposing to install a 18-foot by 36-foot in ground swimming pool at 660 Eldridge Avenue. The pool is currently proposed at 5-feet in depth and would be placed at the rear of the existing home.A deck area surrounding the pool is also proposed. The applicant is currently requesting an exemption from the pool fence requirement via the use of an automatic cover. The applicant is also seeking a 14-foot wetland setback variance and a 39-foot shoreland setback variance. Thefollowing are engineeringreview comments and act as conditions prior to issuing any permitsfor this proposal. 1)It appears from the sketch provided that this property will be at or over the maximum allowable impervious surface coverage with the proposed pool and accompanying deck. The applicant shall provide a plan showing more detailed dimensions of the pool and surrounding deck for impervious surface calculations.The installation of the pool and surrounding deck may require the installation of storm-water best management practices (raingarden, etc.) due to impervious surface coverage limitations. 2)As was noted in the email from the applicant’sdrilling consultant, groundwater levels are constantly fluctuating. The groundwater level noted in the drilling report is very close to the bottom of the proposed pool. The plans shall include the signature of a licensed engineer. The engineer shall certify the construction of the proposed pool as it pertains to the groundwater level. 3)All disturbed areas shall be graded to slopes of 3H:1V or less. This may require the use of retaining walls. Should retaining walls be necessary, they shall be placed as close to the pool area as possible. 4)Erosion control shall be installed prior to any construction activities. Permanent restoration of alldisturbed areas shall occur within 10 days of completion of grading activities. 5)The Owner shall satisfy requirements of all permitting and reviewing agencies. 6)All dewatering operations shall direct water to the street in front of theproperty. Dewatering into the lakeis not allowed. All waters shall be de-chlorinated prior to discharge. Attachment 9 Environmental Review Project: Schneider Pool Variance Dateof Plans: March 5, 2013 Date of Review: March 12, 2013 Location: 660 Eldridge Avenue East Reviewers: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us Virginia Gaynor, Natural ResourcesCoordinator (651) 249-2416;virginia.gaynor@ci.maplewood.mn.us Background: The applicant is proposing to construct a swimming pool in their backyard adjacent Lake Oehrline. The property is located within a Shoreland District and is adjacent a wetland. Environmental Impacts: 1. Shoreland Ordinance a.:Lake Oehrline is a Class 4 Public Water. The shorelandordinance requires structures (including pools) to have a setback of 75 feet to the ordinary high water mark of a Class 4 Public Water. The maximum percentageof impervious surface for a single family waterfront lot is 30 percent, with the possibilityof increasing that to 40 percent with stormwater best practices approved by the City. Existing Conditions: Thehouse is located within 76 feet and the deck is located within 57 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Lake Oehrline. City staff calculates the dry land of the lot to be 17,700 square feet in area with 5,875 square feet of impervious surface coverage(33.2 percent). The lot currently exceeds the shoreland structure setback requirements of 75 feet to the ordinary high water markand the impervious surface coverage maximums of 30 percent. Shoreland Impacts :The pool will be located within 29feet of the lake and will require a 46-foot shoreland structure setback variance. City staff calculates the impervious surface coverageincreasing to 38.4 percent and will require an 8.4 percent impervious surface variance. The impervious surface variance can be avoided with the removal of existing impervious surface, or approval of stormwater best practices to allow for impervious surface bonuses. Wetland Ordinance b.:Lake Oehrline is also classified as a Manage B wetland(entire lakeis a wetland). The wetlandordinance requires a 50 foot buffer for Manage B wetlands. Existing Conditions: The house is located within 76 feet andthe deck is located within 57 feet of the wetland. The lawn area adjacent the wetland is almost completely mowed, with four feet of rock lined shore. Wetland Impacts : The pool will be constructed within 29feet of the wetland and will require a 21foot wetland buffer variance. Variance Mitigation Strategies: 2.The house was built prior to the City’s shoreland and wetland ordinance requirements. It is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot with lawn maintained up to the edge of the lake. City staff worked with the applicant on mitigation strategies that would reduce the impacts of the pool construction to the lake and wetland. The mitigation strategies chosen by the applicant include the installation of a 15-foot-wide buffer planting along at least 75 percent of the shorelineand the removal ofimpervious surface. . Buffer Planting Design: a. Maplewood’s wetland ordinance states that a mitigated wetland buffer must be plantedwith native vegetation. The March 5, 2013, landscape buffer designsubmitted by the applicant mixes native and nonnative plants. The buffer is designed more as a garden rather than anaturalized buffer planting. While the design has a nice mix of shrubs and perennials, it does not meet the requirements of being a native vegetated buffer. There is opportunity for aesthetic plantings in designing a native buffer, as long as the functionality of the buffer is met includingroot structures are adequate to hold the soil, buffer provides habitat for native insects and wildlife (thus mostly native plants), and vegetation slows and filters stormwater runoff.Staff concerns with the design submitted include: 1)There are too many non-native species in the design to meet requirements for buffer mitigation (99 non-native perennial plants, 14 native grass plants, and 115 native prairie plants). The shrub areas are fine and are well integrated into the bed. 2)There is too much massing of single species. Many of our native prairie flowers do not perform well when used this wayand need to be interspersed with grasses or other flowers. A few species such as butterfly weed, and prairie onion, can do well massed. 3)There are toofewnative grasses in the design. 4)Ideally, a buffer of native prairie plants mixesgrasses and flowers. This helps hold the soil since a variety of root systems are intertwined in an area, and it provides better cover since some plants have limited foliage. 5)Some of the native flowers specified in the design are not goodfor massing or are not good in the location they are placed: a)Black-eyed Susan –The design specified our native black eyed- Susan. Ournative is spindly, has little foliage, and  typically just lives 2-3 years. It is great planted among grasses, but does not do well as a mass planting. The plan called for 37 of these. If the intent was to use the cultivar (‘Goldsturm’) and not the native, that would do well here but would not meet the intent of the buffer. b)Blue-flag iris – This is our native wetlandiris. It is typically planted at the water’s edge, not midslope. If the soil has high clay content, it may be okay in the location shown. c) Cardinal flower – This is sometimes short-lived in a garden setting. d)Lupine – Our native lupine is a showstopper in late May and early June.But it often goesdormant before the end of August. Thus it is not ideal for a mass planting, for the border edge. It is great mixed with prairie grasses and other species. Impervious Surface Coverage: b.The applicant submitted impervious surface calculations with their application. The calculations show impervious surface coverage on the existinglot to be 25 percent. Under the applicant’s calculations, removal of 200 feet of impervious surface after the pool is constructed will ensure that their lot does not exceed 30 percent impervious surface coverage. Jon Jarosch, staff engineer, also calculated impervious surface on the lot and determined the coverage to be 33.2 percent.Under the City’s calculations, even the removal of 200 feet of impervious surface after the pool is constructed would require an impervious surface variance – total impervious surface would equal 37 percent. Following is a comparison of the applicant’s and City’s impervious surface calculations: Applicant’s City's CalculationsCalculations Total "Dry" Land Area19,531.017,700.0 Existing Impervious4,883.05,875.0 Existing Percent Impervious25.0%33.2% Proposed New Impervious925.0925.0 Proposed Percent Impervious29.7%38.4% Recommendations 3.: a.Buffer Planting Design: The applicant’s March 5, 2013, landscape plan shows a 15-foot-wide shoreland/wetland buffer which covers 75 percent of the lake/wetland frontage. The plan shows the planting of native and nonnative plants. Prior to issuance of a pool permit, the applicant must  submit a revised landscape plan with the following design changes that will better meet buffer restoration requirements: a)The number of non-native perennials should be significantly reduced and should be restricted to the lawn side of the bed. b)Additional native grasses should be incorporated into the design. c) Portions of the non-shrub areas should mix native grasses and perennials. d)Substitutions should be made for the large patches of black-eyed Susan and lupine – or these areas shouldmix grasses with these flowers. Impervious Surface b.:Applicant must work with staff to ensure accurate impervious surface calculations. If the calculations reflect the lot has more than 30 percent impervious surface coverage after the construction of the pool, the applicant must: a)Submit a plan which reflects the removal of existing impervious surface coverage (patio/sidewalks/portions of driveway) to ensure the lot does not exceed 30 percent coverage. b)Submit a revised landscape plan which shows theinstallation of a rainwater garden on the back side of the house to capture stormwater runoff prior to running into the lake/wetland. . Surety: c. Prior to issuance of a building permitthe applicant should submit a letter of credit or cash escrow to cover the cost of the mitigation measures outlined above. The City will release the surety after completion of the pool and mitigation measures.  Attachment 10 VARIANCE RESOLUTION SHORELAND SETBACK WHEREAS, Amanda and Joseph Schneider applied for a variance from the shoreland protection ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property located at 660 Eldridge Avenue. The property identificationnumberfor thisproperty is: 17-29-22-12-0059 WHEREAS, Ordinance Section44-1242 of the Shoreland Overlay District, requires a setbackof 75feet in width adjacent to a Class 4 Public Water. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a setbackof 29feet, requiring a variance of 46 feet, from the Class 4 Public Water. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1.On March 18, 2013, the environmental and natural resources commission reviewed this variance and recommended __________. 2. On March 19, 2013, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council ______the variance request. 3. The city council held a public meeting on _______, 2013, to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council __________the above- described variances based on the following reasons: A.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the shoreland setbackrequirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. B.Approval of the requested shorelandsetbackvariance would benefit the adjacent lake becausethe site will be planted with additional buffer plantings. C.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. D.TheMinnesota Department of Natural Resourceshas reviewedthe applicant’s plansand does not require a permit or have any state statutes that prevent the pool from being built. Attachment 10 Conditions of Approval Approval of the shoreland setbackvariance shall be subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in the EngineeringReview report by Jon Jarosch and in Shann Finwall and Virginia Gaynor’s Environmental Review. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on _________,2013. Attachment 11 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WETLANDBUFFER WHEREAS, Amanda and Joseph Schneider applied for a variance from the wetland protection ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies toproperty located at 660 Eldridge Avenue. The property identification number for this property is: 17-29-22-12-0059 WHEREAS, Ordinance Section 12-310, the Environmental Protection and Critical Area Ordinance dealing with Wetlands, requires a wetland protection buffer of 50feet in width adjacent to Manage B wetlandsnext to lakes. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing wetland protection buffers of 29feet, requiring a variance of 21 feet, from the Manage B wetland. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1.On March 18, 2013, the environmental and natural resources commission reviewed this variance and recommended __________. 2. On March 19, 2013, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council ______the variance request. 3. The city council held a public meeting on _______, 2013, to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council __________the above- described variances based on the following reasons: A.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. B.Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent wetland becausethe site will be planted with additional buffer plantings. C.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. D.The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewedthe applicant’s plansand had no concerns and does not require a permit. Attachment 11 Conditions of Approval Approval of the wetland buffer variance shallbe subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in the EngineeringReview report by Jon Jarosch and in Shann Finwall and Virginia Gaynor’s Environmental Review. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on _________, 2013. MEMORANDUM TO:James Antonen, City Manager FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manger Resolution of Appreciation forJoe Boeser SUBJECT: DATE:March 12,2013 INTRODUCTION Joe Boeser has served on the planning commission since July 9, 2007, but has recently resigned from the commission due to his move out of Maplewood. Joe continued to serve until the city council appointed a new member to his seat on the commission. th Joe’s last meeting with the planning commission was February 5.The commission is very grateful that Joe continued to serve and provide his expertise in the interim until the council made their recent appointmentto fill his position. RECOMMENDATION Accept the attached resolution of appreciation for Commissioner Boeserand forward this acknowledgement to the city council for their approval. P:Planning Commission\Resolution of Appreciation for Joe Boeser March 2013te Attachment: Resolution of Appreciationfor Joe Boeser JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Joseph Boeserhas been a member of the Planning Commission sinceJuly 9, 2007and has served faithfully in that capacity; and WHEREAS, Joehas freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, the planning commission hasappreciatedthe experience, insights and good judgmentJoehas provided over these many years; and WHEREAS, Joehas shown sincerededication to hisduties and has consistently contributed hisleadership, timeand effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens that Joseph Boeser is hereby extended our gratitude and appreciation for hisdedicated service. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on ___________, 2013 ____________________________________ Will Rossbach, Mayor Passed by the Maplewood Planning Commission On_____________, 2013 ____________________________________ Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Attest: ________________________________ Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO:James Antonen, City Manager FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Oath of Office SUBJECT: DATE:March 12, 2013 State Statute Section 358.05, requires that all elected or appointed officials must swear an oath of office prior toconducting or participating in any business of the commission or board. The oath of office is as follows: I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State ofMinnesota and faithfully discharge the duties of the Planning Commissionin the City of Maplewood, inthe County of Ramsey and the State of Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability. So help me God. Staff will be swearing in all new planning commissionerswhich have not been given the oath of office during the March 19, 2013 meeting. Each commissioner must sign the oath, which is then filed with the City Clerk. Planning Commissioner Signature: _______________________________________ Date: ___________________ P:planning commission\Oath of Office PC membership 3 13 te MEMORANDUM TO:Planning Commissionr FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner 2013-2014Planning Commission Schedule for City Council SUBJECT: MeetingAttendance DATE:March 12, 2013 INTRODUCTION The planning commission has established a schedule for their attendance at city council meetings when there are commission actionsto present.Attached is the revised 2013- 2014planning commission schedule for future city council meetings.Please review this schedule and provide staff with any revisions to your telephone numbers if they are different than shownor if you wish different numbers listed. The city council has recently filled the last two vacancies on the planning commission. This update adds Mr. Donofrio and Mr. Kempe to the roster. Staff included the previous schedule for comparison. P:planning commission\2013 schedule for city council meetings Attachment: 1.2013-2014Planning Commission Schedule for City Council Meeting Attendance 2.2012-2013Schedule 2013-2014PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGATTENDANCE (Last Revised 2/26/13) Lorraine Fischer02-11-1306-24-1311-11-1303-24-14 651-777-5037 (h) Stephen Wensman02-25-1307-08-1311-25-1304-14-14 (651-755-4341)(c) Dale Trippler03-11-1307-22-1312-09-1304-28-14 651-490-1485(h) Tushar Desai03-25-1308-12-1312-23-1305-12-14 651-484-2132 (h) Paul Arbuckle04-08-1308-26-1301-13-1405-26-14 651-303-0347 (c) Larry Durand04-22-1309-09-1301-27-1406-09-14 651-770-2097 (h) Al Bierbaum05-13-1309-23-1302-10-1406-23-14 651-330-9088 (h) John Donofrio05-27-1310-14-1302-24-1407-14-14 651-578-1885 (h) 651-331-0041 (c) Bill Kempe06-10-1310-28-1303-10-1407-28-14 651-226-7933 (c) ndth City Council meetingsare held the 2and 4Mondays of each month. If you cannot attend a city council meeting on your scheduled date, please arrange to trade dates with another commissioner and alsoplease inform staffas well. Tom Ekstrand651-249-2302tom.ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us P:planning commission\2013schedule for city council meetings 2012-2013PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGATTENDANCE Lorraine Fischer12-26-1105-14-1209-24-1202-11-13 651-777-5037 (h) Stephen Wensman01-09-1205-28-1210-08-1202-25-13 (651-755-4341) Vacant 01-23-1206-11-1210-22-1203-11-13 (previously Joe Boeser) 651-770-1590 (h) 651-428-0219 (c) Vacant02-13-1206-25-1211-12-1203-25-13 Dale Trippler02-27-1207-09-1211-26-1204-08-13 651-490-1485 (h) Tushar Desai03-12-1207-23-1212-10-1204-22-13 651-484-2132 (h) Paul Arbuckle03-26-1208-13-1212-24-1205-13-13 651-303-0347 (cell) Larry Durand04-09-1208-27-1201-14-1305-27-13 651-770-2097 (h) Al Bierbaum04-23-1209-10-1201-28-1306-10-13 651-330-9088 (h) ndth City Council meetings are held the 2and 4Mondays of each month. If you cannot attend a city council meeting on your scheduled date, please arrange to trade dates with another commissioner and also please inform staff as well. tom.ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us Tom Ekstrand651-249-2302 P:planning commission\2012schedule for city council meetings #3