Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-02 PC Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 2, 2016 7:00PM Council Chambers -Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a.January 5,2016 5.Public Hearing a.7:00 p.m. or later: Consider Approval of a Conditional Use PermitResolution, Galilee Lutheran ChurchCommunity Garden,1958 Rice Street b.7:00 p.m. or later: Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing a Wetland Buffer Variance, 2214Woodlynn Avenue c.7:00 p.m. or later: Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Vacation of a Public Utility and Drainage Easement, 2215 Lydia Avenue 6.New Business 7.Unfinished Business 8.Visitor Presentations 9.Commission Presentations a.January 25, 2016city council meeting–Commissioner Kempe Costco,1431 Beam Avenue East 2015 Planning Commission Annual Report b.February 22, 2016city council meeting–Commissioner Ige Galilee Lutheran Church Community Garden,1958 Rice Street Wetland Buffer Variance, 2214Woodlynn Avenue Vacation of a Public Utility and Drainage Easement, 2215 Lydia Avenue 10.Staff Presentations 11.Adjournment DRAFT MINUTESOF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 5,2016 7:00 P.M. 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 Chairperson Arbuckle. 2.ROLL CALL Paul Arbuckle, ChairpersonPresent Frederick Dahm, CommissionerPresent Tushar Desai,CommissionerPresent John Donofrio, CommissionerPresent at 7:22 p.m. Allan Ige, CommissionerPresent Bill Kempe, CommissionerPresent Dale Trippler, Vice ChairpersonPresent Staff Present: Michael Martin,Economic Development Coordinator 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA CommissionerTripplermoved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by CommissionerDesai.Ayes –All The motion passed. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Trippler requested additional information be added to the minutes on the second page, under new business,in the second to the last bulleted item. The commission would like it reflected that they requested the police department provide a report on the parking issues in the city for the past two years and would like someone from the police department come to a planning commission meeting and give a full report. Staff was notpresent at the planning commission meeting but staff will have the recording secretary amend minutes to reflect that the police department should get information for the planning commission and staff will request the police departmentreport back to the planning commission at a future meeting depending on the schedule of police department. CommissionerTripplermoved to approve theDecember 15,2015, PCminutes as amended. Seconded by CommissionerDahm.Ayes –Commissioner’s Dahm, Donofrio, Kempe & Trippler Abstentions –Chairperson Arbuckle & Commissioner Desai The motion passed. January 5, 2016 1 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes 5.PUBLIC HEARING a.7:00 p.m. or later: Approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment and a Parking Waiver, Costco, 1431 Beam Avenue East i.Economic Development Coordinator, Mike Martin gave the presentation on Costco, 1431 Beam Avenue East for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and a Parking Waiver. ii.Civil Engineer, Shawn Murphy, Landform,105-5th Avenue South, Suite 513, Minneapolis, addressed and answered questions of the commission Chairperson Arbuckleopened the public hearing. Nobody came forward to address the commission. Chairperson Arbuckleclosed the public hearing. Commissioner Tripplermoved to approvethe resolution in the staff report approving an amendment to the planned unit development which permits a Costco and a fuel station and tire service center at 1431 Beam Avenue East for its proposed building expansion. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1.The developmentbuilding expansionshall follow the plans date-stamped May 31, 2007 December 11, 2015except where the city requires changes. Staff may approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4.The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the engineer’s report dated April 20, 2007 December 10, 2015. 5.There shall not be any outdoor storage of tires unless they are kept within a decorative screening enclosure approved by the community design review board. 6.The fueling area shall have proper safeguards provided to prevent or contain any fuel spills as required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Commissioner Tripplermoved to approve the parking waiver as proposed subject to the retention of the proposed proof-of-parking spaces in case they are needed for future parking needs. If a parking shortage develops after the paving and curbing of the proof-of-parking spaces, the city council may require parking lot restriping to add more spaces. Seconded by Commissioner Kempe.Ayes -All The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on January 25, 2016. 6.NEW BUSINESS a.2015 Planning Commission Annual Report i.Economic Development Coordinator, Mike Martin gavean overview ofthe 2015 Planning Commission Annual Report. January 5, 2016 2 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes Commissioner Tripplermoved to approve the 2015 Planning Commission Annual Report. Seconded by Commissioner Desai.Ayes -All The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on January 25, 2016. b.Planning Commission’s Rules of Procedure –Annual Review i.Economic Development Coordinator, Mike Martin gavea brief review ofthe Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Commissioner Tripplermoved to approvethe Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Seconded by CommissionerDonofrio.Ayes -All The motion passed. The commission discussed the pros and cons of having 7 planning commission members which is commonpracticein some cities verses the 9 members the Maplewood planning commission has.Staff stated the city has been advertising for openings on the boards and commissions for Maplewood but is having difficulty finding volunteers to serve. Commission members stated they prefer keeping 9 members on the planning commission. One of the commissioners asked staff if the openings on boards and commissionscould be mentioned duringthe Mayoralsaddress at the MCC on January 14, 2016. c.City Council Meeting Attendance Schedule for Planning Commissioners i.Economic Development Coordinator, Mike Martin reviewed the 2016city council meeting attendance list with the planning commission. No action was required. 7.UNFINISHEDBUSINESS Commissioner Trippler said he contacted the city manager and staff regarding infill in the City of Maplewood and gave several examples of how infill has occurred in the city. He recommended the planning commission meet more often and discuss things such as infill and the possibilities of development in the city. There could be open meetings to invite neighborhoods to come to a planning commission meeting and discuss the future and planning in the city as well as things such as amendments to the comprehensive plan.Staff and the planning commission discussed this at length. The city manager will discuss this with the Mayor and city council. Commissioner Trippler mentioned talking on the phone to the Building Official, Nick Carver regarding Greenways and corridors and asked staff about that. 8.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. 9.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a.December 21, 2015 City Council meeting . Commissioner Kempe was the representative. The only item was the Maplewood Auto Mall, 2529 White Bear Avenue which was passed. January 5, 2016 3 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes b.January 25, 2016 City Council meeting .Commissioner Kempe will be the PC representative and itemsinclude the Costco PUD Amendment and Parking Waiver at 1431 Beam Avenue Eastand the 2015 Planning Commission Annual Report. 10.STAFFPRESENTATIONS None. 11.ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Arbuckleadjourned the meeting at 8:08p.m. January 5, 2016 4 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Daniela Lorenz, Planning Technician Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: January 20, 2016 SUBJECT: Approval of a Conditional Use PermitResolution, Galilee Lutheran ChurchCommunity Garden, 1958 Rice Street Introduction Galilee Lutheran Church, located at 145 McCarrons Boulevard, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to create a community garden at 1958 Rice Street, the former Zittel’s Greenhouse property. The request includes158 garden plots each 16 by 20 feet, and would maintain the 15 stall, gravel parking lot that is currently on the site. The property is owned by St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) but is currently vacant. Galilee Lutheran Church would be leasing the land until the utility needs the property. Discussion Land Use and Site Plan City code does not specifically state community gardens as a use. But public services, educational uses, philanthropic uses, and churches are allowed in all zoning districts with a CUP. In 2009, under similar circumstances, the city allowed First Evangelical Free Church to create a garden at the Southwest Corner of County Road C and Hazelwood Street. The applicant is proposing to install 8 foot high fencing around the perimeter of the garden to deter deer and theft. The fencing used would be polypropylene deer fencing. There will also be a small shed and composting area in the center of the property to house tools and materials for the gardeners. The fence would require a building permit and to be signed off on by a structural engineer, as required by the state building code. Parking To handle parking, the applicant is requesting to maintain the legal, non-conforming 15 stall, gravel parkinglot that currently exists on the property. The applicant discussed with other organizations that maintain community gardens and indicated to staff that 15 stalls should be more than enough. There are a few anticipated events that would result in an increased need for parking. The applicant indicates the extra parking needs could be handled by using the adjacent McCarron’s Bar and Grill parking lot or Galilee Lutheran Church’s parking lot across Rice Street. There are also no specific parking guidelines for this type of use, but there is an existing parking lot on site and staff does not believe there will be a parking shortage for this use. As a condition of approval, staff would recommend the applicant be required to submit documentation confirming alternative parking arrangements are in place. Tree Preservation The applicant indicated that they would not be removing any trees from the property. Lighting The lighting on site will not change as a result of the addition. Environmental There is a Manage A wetland adjacent to the proposed project which requires a 100 foot buffer according to city code. The applicant’s plans indicate the fencing and planting will happen outside the 100 foot wetland barrier. The applicants has also indicated they will be placing hay bales along the perimeter near the wetland to catch storm water run-off. The garden will also have and enforce a rule prohibiting the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on the plots in order to protect the area from potentially harmful run-off. Water Services Initially, a series of hoses will be used to water the plots with the intention of eventually installing underground piping. The community garden site will be served by the water from the McCarron’s Pub and Grill’s well and will have access to a spigot located on the eastern side of McCarron’s property. Currently, McCarron’s is not connected to the city’s water supply but they anticipate being connected by April 2016. Department Comments Building Department Nick Carver, building official – A building permit and a structural engineer’s report must be obtained before constructing the proposed fence. Fire Department Butch Gervais, fire marshal – No comments Police Department Paul Schnell, police chief – No comments Engineering Department Jon Jarosch, City Engineer—applicant must obtain a grading permit before any disturbances take place on site. Environmental Review See Shann Finwall’s staff report attached to this report. Recommendation Approve the applicant’s plans for the proposed community garden and legal, non- conforming parking lot at 1958 Rice Street. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.The proposed usemust be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 2.The city council shall review this permit in one year. Staff may approve minor changes. 3.Applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the city’s public works department before any disturbances take place on site. 4.Applicant shall enter a shared parking agreement with McCarron’s Pub and Grill to accommodate overflow parking needs for various events. 5.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by environmental planner Shann Finwall, dated January 15, 2016. 6.Applicant shall obtain a building permit and structural engineer’s report before constructing the proposed fence along the perimeter of the gardened area. 7.The existing, legal non-conforming parking lot may not be altered or expanded without gaining the required city approvals. Citizen Comments Staff surveyed the 29 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. There were 3 replies, allin favor of the project. Ron Peterson, Galilee Lutheran Church- 145 McCarrons Blvd N, St. Paul, MN “Galilee fully supports this CUP. We are very excited about the value of this community garden, This is a big challenge for our small church, but we have a lot of people an d organization behind us.” Amy O’Donnell L-Z Truck Equipment, 1881 Rice Street, Roseville, MN “I wish them nothing but the best on their project. I hope it is approved and they are blessed with green thumbs!” Steve Schneider, St. Paul Regional Water Services, 1900 Rice Street, St. Paul, MN “On behalf of the Board of Water Commissioners, I would like to submit the following comments on the requested CUP at 1958 North Rice Street.As the owners of the property, our lease agreement with the church will allow us to cancel the agreement and use the property for SPRWS needs should we deem it necessary to do so. We are glad we can work with Galilee Lutheran Church to provide this opportunity for the community through the provision of thecommunity gardens.” Reference Information Site Description Site size: 13.31 acres Existing land use: Vacant Property, owned by St. Paul Regional Water Services Surrounding Land Uses North: McCarron’s Pub and Grill South: Carhop Automobile Sales and Finance West: Rice Street/Galilee Lutheran Church East: Soo Line Railroad Planning Land Use Plan designation: C (commercial) Zoning: BC (business commercial) Application Date The application for this request was considered complete on January 15, 2016. State law requires that the city decide on these applications within 60 days. The deadline for city council action on this proposal is March 15, 2016. Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Applicant’s Letter, December 28, 2015 3.Proposed Site Plan 4.Environmental Report, Shann Finwall, January 15, 2015 5.Conditional Use Permit Resolution 1958 Rice Street - Community Garden Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Environmental Review Project: Date of Plans: Date of Review: Location: Reviewer: Background Project Background Environmental Issues Discussion 1. Wetland Wetland Impacts: Wetland Recommendations: Trees: Tree Impacts: Attachment 4 Tree Recommendations: Urban Agriculture: Urban Agriculture Issues: Urban Agriculture Recommendations: Attachment 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Galilee Lutheran Church, has applied for a conditional use permit for a community garden and use of a legal, non-conforming parking lot in a business commercial (BC) zoning district. WHEREAS, Sections 44-1092 of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for a public use in a BC (business commercial) district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 1958 Rice Street. The property’s legal description is: Subj To Drainage Esmt And Sth 49/126; Ex The N 44 Ft Of S 675 Ft Of W 142 Ft Os Sw 1/4 Of Nw 1/4 And Ex N 158 Ft Of S 631 Ft Of W 152 Ft Of Sw 1/4 Of Nw 1/4 And Ex S 158 Ft Of W 150 Ft Of Sw 1/4 Of Nw1/4; The S 675 Ft Lying Wly Of Soo Line Ry R/w Of The Sw 1/4 Of Nw 1/4 Sec 18 Tn 29 Rn 22 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 2, 2016, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in thepaper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council ______this permit. 2.OnFebruary22, 2016, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDthat the city council _________ the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3.The use would not depreciate property values. 4.The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5.The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. Attachment 5 6.The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7.The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8.The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9.The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.The proposeduse must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 2.The city council shall review this permit in one year. Staff may approve minor changes. 3.Applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the city’s public works department before any disturbances take place on site. 4.Applicant shall enter a shared parking agreement with McCarron’s Pub and Grill to accommodate overflow parking needs for various events. 5.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by environmental planner Shann Finwall, dated January 15, 2016. 6.Applicant shall obtain a building permit and structural engineer’s report before constructing the proposed fence along the perimeter of thegardened area. 7.The existing, legal non-conforming parking lot may not be altered or expanded without gaining the required city approvals. The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on February 22, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner DATE: January 26, 2016 SUBJECT: ConsiderApproval of a Resolution Authorizing a Wetland Buffer Variance, 2214 Woodlynn Avenue Introduction Ryan and Sarah Buhl are proposing to construct a new single family house on a vacant lot located at 2214 Woodlynn Avenue East. There is a Manage C wetland located on the lot. The City’s wetland ordinance requires a 50-foot wetland buffer be maintained around a Manage C wetland.There is no building, grading, or mowing allowed within the wetland buffer. The applicants’single family house is proposed to be constructed within 36 feet of the wetland edge, with grading to within 20 feet of the wetland. In order to construct the single family house as proposed, the applicants must receive approval of a 30-foot wetland buffer variance from the CityCouncil.Refer to the applicants’ letter and plans attached (Attachments 1 through 6). Background In 2001 the City of Maplewood approved a lot division to create two lots with frontage on Woodlynn Avenue.The lot division deeds were not recorded with the County within one year of the City’s approval. Thus the lot division was not complete. In 2013 the City of Maplewood approved a lot division to create two lots with frontage on Woodlynn Avenue. In July 2014 the applicants purchased one of the vacant lots at 2214 Woodlynn Avenue East. In December 2015 the applicants submitted a building permit for the construction of a single family house at 2214 Woodlynn Avenue East. The survey submitted with the building permit reflected that the house would be constructed within 36 feet of the wetland and that grading for the house would take place within 20 feet of the wetland. The City notified the applicants that the house plans had to be modified to ensure no impacts to the wetland buffer, or the applicants must obtain approval of a wetland buffer variance from the City Council. The applicants have chosen to apply for a wetland buffer variance to construct the single family house as proposed. Discussion State Law 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; Engineering Comments Jon Jarosch, PE, engineerwith the City of Maplewood, submitted an Engineering Plan Report for the proposed single family house (Attachment 7).Mr. Jarosch states that the additional drainage generated by developing the site can be routed to minimize the potential for negative impacts to surrounding areas. The engineering department will ensure this through the grading permit process and conditions outlined in the report. Neighborhood Comments TheCity of Maplewood mailed notices to property owners within 500 feet of the property, requesting feedback on the proposed wetland buffer variance. The City received nine responses (Attachment 8). Mitigation Strategies Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of the variance with mitigation strategies as outlined below: 1.House Location:The proposed single family house has a 30-footfront yard setback as measured from the foundation of the front porch, and a 34-foot front yard setback as measured from the foundation of the house.City code requires that a single family house maintain a 30-foot front yard setback, or the predominant setback of the existing houses on the same street.The predominant setback along Woodlynn Avenue appears to be 30 feet. The City can approve a reduced front yard setback as long as the setback:a) would not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties; b) would not affect the privacy of adjacent homes; c) would save significant natural features; d) is necessary to meet city, state, or federal regulations, such as pipelinesetback or noise regulations; or e) is necessary for energy saving, health or safety reasons. To reduce the impacts to the wetland (natural feature), staff recommends the applicants shift the house at least four feet to the north, toward the road. The house will then maintain a 26-footfront yard setback to the foundation of the porch, and a 30-foot front yard setback to the foundation of the house. 2.Retaining Wall:To reduce the impacts to the wetland, staff recommends the applicants construct a retaining wall 8 to 10 feet away from the south side of the house, adjacent the wetland. The retaining wall will help create a flat lawn area and reduce the amount of grading and impacts to the wetland. 3.Wetland Buffer Restoration:To improve the remaining wetland buffer, staff recommends the applicants restore the buffer to native plants. Recommendation Recommend approval of the attached resolution authorizing a wetland buffer variance for 2214 Woodlynn Avenue East. Approval is based on the following reasons: 1.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. 3 2.Approval of the wetland buffer variance willinclude the restoration of the remaining wetland buffer, which will improve the water quality of the wetland. 3.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance with the construction of a new single family house on a vacant lot that is zoned and guided in the City’s comprehensive plan as residential. Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to the following: 1.Conditions outlined in Jon Jarosch’s January 25, 2016, Engineering Plan Review. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the new single family house the applicantsmust submit: a.A tree plan which shows the location, size, and species of all significant trees located on the lot, and the trees that will be removed with the construction of the new single family house.Removal of significant trees with the construction of the single family house must comply with the City’s tree preservation ordinance and tree replacement requirements. b.A revised survey which shows the house shifted four feet to the north, toward the road. This will decrease the impacts to the wetland. c. A revised grading plan which shows the location of a retaining wall to be constructed approximately 8 to 10 feet from the south side of the house, adjacent the wetland. This will create a flat yard area and reduce the amount of grading and impacts to the wetland. d.A revised survey which shows the location of the proposed deck on the first floor. The deck footings must not encroach past the proposed retaining wall located in the back yard. This will ensure no additional impacts to the wetland. d.A revised survey which shows the house shifted 14 feet to the east side of the lot if feasible. This will minimize impacts of the new single family house and wetland buffer variance to the existing single family house located at 2206 Woodlynn Avenue East. e. A wetland buffer restoration plan to be approved by City staff.This will improve the water quality of the wetland. g. An escrow to cover up to 150 percent of the cost of the wetland buffer restoration. 3. Prior to release of the escrow, the wetland buffer plantings must be established. Attachments 1.Applicants’ Letter Dated January 7, 2016 2.Site Plan 3.Wetland Map 4.Original Lot Split 5.New House Survey 6. House Elevations 7.Engineering Plan Review 8.Neighborhood Comments 9. Variance Resolution 4 Attachment 1 Attachment 3 2214 Woodlynn Avenue Wetland Map North ^ Blue = Manage C Wetland Attachment 4 Attachment 5 36-footsetbackfrom edgeofhouseto 20-footsetback edgeofwetland fromgradingto edgeofwetland ManageC Wetland Attachment 6 Attachment Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: 2214 Woodlynn Avenue Wetland Buffer Variance Request PROJECT NO: 16-01 COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. DATE:1-25-2016 PLAN SET:Conceptual plans dated 11-30-2015 The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home at 2214 Woodlynn Avenue East. Due to the proximity to a wetland located on the lot, the applicants are requesting a variance to the wetland buffer established by City ordinance. While thesize of this projectis belowthe threshold which would trigger the City’s stormwater quality standards; concerns have been raised by area residents in regards to the potential drainage impacts of the development of this lot. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the additional drainage generated by developing this site can be routed to minimize the potential for negative impacts to surrounding areas. Through the grading permit process, the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to ensure that the amount and rate of runoff reaching the wetland after construction is equal to, or less than, the amount and rate prior to construction.The following are comments on the current designand act as conditions of approval. Final plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of permits. 1)This project will require an approved grading and erosion control permit prior to any construction activities on the site.As noted above, the applicant shall work with the City’s EngineeringDepartment, through the permitting process, to ensure runoff reaching the wetland is less than, or equal to, that reaching it prior to construction. This includes routing as much of the runoff, generated by the house, to the street as possible. This may include modifying the grading plan, installing rain gutters that capture roof runoff and direct it to the front of the house, etc. 2)Adjacent streetsshall be swept as needed to keep the pavementclear of sediment and construction debris. 3)The total grading volume (cut/fill) shall be noted on the plans. 4)The applicant shall be responsible for paying any SAC, WAC, or PAC charges related to the improvements proposed with this project. 5)The applicant shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting agencies. Please provide copies of other required permits and approvals. -END COMMENTS - Attachment 2214 Woodlynn Avenue East – Wetland Buffer Variance Comments 1.Mike Miller, 2221 Woodlynn Avenue East(e-mail): I live at 2221 Woodlynn Avenue, across the street from the proposed construction site. I have no objection to the request for a variance bythe owners of the lot at 2214 Woodlynn. 2.Ken and Joy Hutchinson, 2212 Lydia Avenue(e-mail):We received a letter in the mail requesting our opinion on a proposal by Ryan and Sarah Buhl for new construction. Our home address is 2212 Lydia Avenue. Neither my husband norI have any objections if the proposed construction improves the area which we live in or will not harm any wildlife that may hide on the site. 3.Charlotte Nelson, 2187 Woodlynn Avenue East(e-mail):I feel that the proposal by Ryan and Sarah Buhl to build on 2214 Woodlynn Avenue East, Maplewood should be approved. I realize the importance of wetlands but feel this distance is feasible. This property has been for sale for many years and not always kept in good condition (never mowed or weeded, for sale sign hanging haphazardly). A new home would be a plus. 4.Chuck Regal, 2206 Woodlynn Avenue East(e-mail): I have owned and occupied the property next to 2214 (2206) for 32 years. Back then, development to the west, mainly 2164, 2154, and 2144 caused excess water to flow past my property and nearly flood me out. Some modification helped but it was something the city was not watching too closely. The “Manage C” wetland was not designated in those years. In fact there was a cul-de-sac on the east side of the two properties (2214, 2224) that was designated to support maybe 5 houses (properties) on top of the now designated wetland. That all changed a few short years ago, thanks to me and the watchful eye and cooperation of the City Engineering Department. The previous owner of those properties attempted to fill in the “Manage C” area without the proper permits and I stopped it. The City then took over and directed the grading you now see and actually enlarged the wetland to accommodate more volume (thank you). Two years ago that area filled up half way during the spring thaw. Back in 1986, during a two day summer rain, my back yard was completely flooded with water lapping up to my sliding glass doors. I think now you get mypoint that the “Manage C” wetland is prominent in the security and well-being of the property at 2206. My wish and request is that if you grant the variance to that wetland, you diligently and faithfully monitor its development to specifications to ensure it complies. Additionally, if there is some way (mechanism) to insure that accidental or incidental fill-inscannot happen around its perimeter, now, and in the future, that would be a plus. May I make suggestions?I am not all that good reading survey plots but wondering about a couple of items: a.It appears that the building is not centered on the plot. Could that be changed? It would put the west side further away from the east side of my house. b.I see front stakes out there now. They don’t appear to be in line with the front of my garage (closest point to the blvd line). It would seem that the front setback is not as close to the front property line (blvd) as it could be. If that were possible, more space between the wetland and the backof the house could be realized. Even permission to be a few feet further towards the front would be a positive move;I would think (5 or 10ft??). c.Sometimes further development takes place after the initial building project is completed. My observation that a patio might be envisioned in front of the rear glass sliding doors at a later time and the dimensions or the construction process could encroach on the perimeter of the wetland. Could that be addressed? I am encouraged that the City has taken this pro-active interest in this project and preserving this wetland, not only for aesthetic and water control reasons but for an interest in protecting my property. I will miss sitting on my deck overlooking that vacant property but always knowing that someday it could be developed. I have met Mr. Buhl and wish him and his family well in their hopes for the project they are planning. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions or observations you may have on this matter. 5.Sam and Amanda Daley, 2245 Lydia Avenue(e-mail):We support allowing the variance for the property at 2214 Woodlynn Avenue East as long as they do not cut down any of the large, mature trees behind the house and also address any issues with other trees on the property. For example: Properly cut-down/treat infected trees (oak wilt, ash borer, Dutchelm disease, etc) and remove all invasive species (buckthorn, box elder, etc.). Thank you. 6.Richard and Marlene Zoya, 2223 Lydia Avenue East(e-mail):We live at 2223 Lydia Avenue East. The front of our home faces south and the land south of us is all uphill. On a numberof occasions, when there has been a heavy rain, there has been a stream flowing along the west side of our home andacross our back yard. This water leaves our property at the southeast corner of the 2214Woodynn Avenue lot and thenflows into the wetland area. Other than cleaning up the mess left behind by the water flow, this has never been a problemfor us. However, the back of our lot is lower than the land to the south, east, and west.Runoff from much of thesurrounding area also flows into this wetland. Our lot is fairly level from the back of our walkout home to the back of our property with a slightly greater elevation than that of the wetland. We don't know what effects this proposed encroachmenton the north side of the wetland may have on our property. Nor do we have any knowledge of what our rights of recoverywould be for any negative effects that may result from this encroachment. However, we do know that what exists now hasbeen working. 7.Julie Smendzuik-O’Brien, 3018 Furness Court(e-mail): My husband, D. William (Bill) O'Brien and I received your request for comment on the variance for the above named property.A few thoughts for consideration by the planning commission and City Council. a.HISTORY My husband and I have resided in our home at 3018 Furness Court since January 1986. b.FORMER LAKE 2 During our residence here we learned from neighbors immediately to our north, residingat 3024 Furness Court, that a lake once abutted their easternmost property line. Thiswould be the line closest to the wetland of interest.The neighbors indicated that the lake receded from their property line when the sewer was put in along McKnight Rd. They did not indicate when the sewer line went in. Thehome at 3024 was built I believe in 1971, but I don't know whether the lake was thereat the time they built their home. The original owners at 3024 were Bob and DianeDufresne, from whom we learned about the former lake. They were followed by a couplewho lost the home due to foreclosure. The 3024 property is currently owned byInvitation Homes and is a rental property.I suspect that the wetland under consideration here is part of what remains of the "lake"that was much larger in the past. c.RAIN SATURATED SOIL In the years we have lived here, there was one severe storm during and after whichthere was standing water in the 3024 property back yard near the easternmost propertyline. There was no water in our yard at the time of that storm, however, most likely dueto the more hilly terrain on our property. d.WILDLIFE CORRIDOR During spring, it is possible to hear frogs regularly from the wetland. From the centralwooded part of our block (bordered by Furness Court, Woodlynn, Lydia and McKnight),several homes get regular visits from wildlife all year. The "visited" backyards known tome includes the backyards at 2184 Woodlynn, 3034 Furness Court, 3024 Furness Court,3018 Furness Court, 3010 Furness Court, and 2177 Lydia. It also includes FurnessCourt itself. Other yards are likely visited by the wildlife as well but are unknown to me.At times, I have seen the deer herd with as many as 5 members. The turkey populationvaries from year to year; during 2014 there were three hens and their broods (about 8young), during 2015 there were only two toms regularly visiting backyards, walking onrooftops, and nesting in the tall oaks which are numerous in the block.The proposed home, if approved, would likely be adjacent to this corridor. 8.Larry and Carol Case, 2219 Woodlynn Avenue East (mail):The City Council should refuse the applicant’s request to not only the wetland code, but the wildlife that is being destroyed and the damage to the environment - deer, turkey, pileated woodpecker, owl’s nest, fox, and numerous birds. No. 9.Shane and Louise Witwicke, 2175 Woodlynn Avenue East (mail): I have no problem as long as there is no environmental impact to the wetland. It looks like all theirstormwater runoff will go right into the wetland. 3 Attachment 9 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ryan and Sarah Buhl applied for a variance from the wetland ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property located at2411 Woodlynn Avenue East, Maplewood, MN. The property identification number is 02-29-22-11-0101. The legal description is the Westerly 94.98 Feet of Lots 18 and 19, Block 1, Netnorlin, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, Section 12-310 of the City’s ordinances (Wetlands and Streams) requires a wetland buffer of 50feet adjacent to Manage C wetlands. WHEREAS, the applicants are proposing to construct a single family house and grading for the house to within 20 feet of a Manage C wetland, requiring a 30-foot wetland buffer variance. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1.On January 27, 2016, the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission reviewed the variance and recommended approval of the wetland buffer variance to the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.On February 2, 2016, 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 and Environmental and Natural Resources Commission. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the wetland buffer variance to the City Council. 3.The City Council held a public meeting on February 22, 2016, to review this proposal. The City Council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff, the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, and the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approved the above- described variance based on the following reasons: 1.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. 2.Approval of the wetland buffer variance will include the restoration of the remaining wetland buffer, which will improve the water quality and wildlife habitat of the wetland. 3.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance with the construction of a new single family house on a vacant lot that is zoned and guided in the City’s comprehensive plan as residential. Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to the following: 4.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. 5.Approval of the wetland buffer variance will include the restoration of the remaining wetland buffer, which will improve the water quality of the wetland. 6.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance with the construction of a new single family house on a vacant lot that is zoned and guided in the City’s comprehensive plan as residential. Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to the following: 1.Conditions outlined in Jon Jarosch’s January 25, 2016, Engineering Plan Review. 2.Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the new single family house the applicants must submit: a.A tree plan which shows the location, size, and species of all significant trees located on the lot, and the trees that will be removed with the construction of the new single family house. Removal of significant trees with the construction of the single family house must comply with the City’s tree preservation ordinance and tree replacement requirements. b.A revised survey which shows the house shifted four feet to the north, toward the road. This will decrease the impacts to the wetland. c.A revised grading plan which shows the location of a retaining wall to be constructed approximately 8 to 10 feet from the south side of the house, adjacent the wetland. This will create a flat yard area and reduce the amount of grading and impacts to the wetland. d.A revised survey which shows the location of the proposed deck on the first floor. The deck footings must not encroach past the proposed retaining wall located in the back yard. This will ensure no additional impacts to the wetland. d.A revised survey which shows the house shifted 14 feet to the east side of the lot if feasible. This will minimize impacts of the new single family house and wetland buffer variance to the existing single family house located at 2206 Woodlynn Avenue East. e.A wetland buffer restoration plan to be approved by City staff. This will improve the water quality of the wetland. g.An escrow to cover up to 150 percent of the cost of the wetland buffer restoration. 3.Prior to release of the escrow, the wetland buffer plantings must be established. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on February 22, 2016. MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner DATE: January 26, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of the Vacation of a Public Easement located at 2115 Lydia Avenue Introduction Scott Mogren, previous owner of 2115 Lydia Avenue, had a title search prepared for the sale of his property in December 2015. The title search reflected that the existing single family house was constructed 5 feet within a 10-foot-wide utility and drainage easement on the east side of the property. In order to clear the title, the City must vacate five feet of the encumbered portion of the easement. Refer to site plan and certificate of survey attached (Attachments 1 and 2). Request Vacate a portion of the utility and drainage easement located at 2115 Lydia Avenue. Findings for Approval To vacate an easement, the City Council must find that it is in the public interest. Vacations require a four-fifths vote from the City Council to approve. Discussion In December 2015 Mr. Mogren requested that the Maplewood Engineering Department researchthe easement encroachment prior to the sale of his property at 2115 Lydia Avenue. The Engineering Department determined that there is no public need for the five feet of the encumbered portion of the easement. Michael Thompson, Public Works Director, submitted the attached letter to Mr. Mogren’s title company explaining that the City intends to vacate the easement(Attachment 3). Theletter was required by the title company in order to close on the propertyin December. Mr. Mogren was also required to submit an escrow to the title company to ensure the vacation of the easement was complete. Budget Impact None. Recommendation Approve the attached resolution vacating five feet of the 10-foot-wide utility and drainage easement located on the east side of the property at 2115 Lydia Avenue(Attachment 4). The easement is being vacated since: 1.It is in the public interest. 2.There are no utilities located in the easement, and it is not being utilized. Attachments 1.Site Plan 2.Certificate of Survey 3.Michael Thompson December 29, 2015, Letter 4.Vacation Resolution Attachment 2 5' Vacate5feetofthe existing10-foot-wide utilityanddrainage easement Attachment 3 Attachment 4 EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is requesting the vacation of five feet of the 10-foot-wide utility and drainage easement located on the east side of the property at 2115 Lydia Avenue. The property’s legal description is: Lot 13, Block 1,Lynnwood Terrace WHEREAS, on February 2, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owner. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission also consideredreportsand recommendations from the city staff. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council _________this request. WHEREAS, on ______________, 2016, the City Council reviewedthis request after considering the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, after the City __________this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the adjoining property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ___________the above-described vacation because: 1.It is in the public interest. 2.There are no utilities located in the easement and it is not being utilized. The Maplewood City Council _______this resolution on_____________, 2016.