The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/18/1996BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 18, 1996 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. November 4, 1996 4. Approval of Agenda o o Unfinished Business a. Tower and Antenna Ordinance b. Wetland Setback Variance - General Sprinkler Corporation (County Road D) New Business a. Maplewood Imports - 2780 Highway 61 North - Wetland Buffer-Width Variance - Conditional Use Permit b. Commercial Property Study - Landscaping and Screening Code Change - BC (Business Commercial) Zoning Code Change - M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zoning Code Change - Conditional Use Permit Zoning Code Change 7. Visitor Presentations (over) o Commission Presentations a. November 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson b. November 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 4, 1996 I. CALLTO ORDER Acting Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman Commissioner Barbara Ericson Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Dave Kopesky Gary Pearson William Rossbach Milo Thompson Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Present Present Absent II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 21, 1996 Commissioner Kittridge moved approval of the amended minutes of October 21, 1996, adding "when a copy of the by-laws would be available" to the last sentence in X. Commission Presentations. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--Brueggeman, Fischer, Kittridge, Pearson, Rossbach Abstention--Frost IV. VI. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Frost moved approval of the amended agenda, moving 5. Unfinished Business until after 6. New Business. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. NEW BUSINESS A. Gervais Avenue Feasibility Study (Barclay Street to Kennard Street) Ken Haider, city engineer, presented the staff report. Mr. Haider answered questions from the commission. He said the proposal is to remove the stop signs at Hazelwood and Gervais and install a traffic circle. The circle will contain maintenance-free, salt-durable plantings tall enough to make it evident that access is around and not through the circle. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-04-96 -2- Commissioner Kittridge moved that the Planning Commission find that the street and utility improvements on Gervais Avenue, Barclay Street to Kennard Street, are not in conflict with the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Frost seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--all B. Planning Commission Code Change Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioners Rossbach, Brueggeman and Pearson said they preferred nine members on the commission. Commissioner Pearson said nine members would offer a greater opportunity for participation in more neighborhoods. Acting Chairperson Fischer said she would prefer to have eleven members because of the development still available in Maplewood. The extra body could possibly provide more expertise, and continuity, than the smaller body. Commissioner Kittridge moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the ordinance which changes the size of the planning commission and updates the code language about the planning commission. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes--Brueggeman, Frost, Kittridge, Pearson, Rossbach Nays--Fischer The motion passed. Commissioner Fischer said she voted against the motion only because she preferred 11 members on the planning commission. C. Planning Commission Rules of Procedure Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Acting Chairperson Fischer asked about including the definition of "active" as used in B. 1 Ms. Fischer suggested replacing "active" with "current." ' Commission Pearson moved the Planning Commission adopt the revised planning commission rules of procedure. The revision would include changing B.1. to read the "current membership." Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. D. Election of Officers Commissioner Frost nominated Lorraine Fischer for chairperson. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ms. Fischer noted that the term for this election is until January 1997. According to the rules of procedure, regular election of officers will be held the second meeting in January, 1997. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 11-04-96 Commissioner Kittridge suggested that, since the review of the rules of procedure at this meeting satisfied the requirement through January 1998, this election could also cover that same period of time. Ms. Fischer said, as the rules now stand, this election would stand until the second meeting in January of 1997. Ayes--Brueggeman, Frost, Kittridge, Pearson, Rossbach Abstention--Fischer The motion passed. Commissioner Brueggeman nominated Commissioner Pearson for vice-chairperson (through January 1997). Commissioner Rossbach nominated Commissioner Frost for vice-chair. The commission voted by ballot. Commissioner Jack Frost was elected vice-chairperson. V. NEW BUSINESS Tower and Antenna Ordinance Melinda Coleman, director of community development, presented the staff report. This staff report incorporated changes suggested by the planning commission and industry representatives (at the October 21, 1996, planning commission meeting). Commissioner Rossbach felt the city should have the same requirements as everyone else (i.e., go through the conditional use process). In the case where a tower is constructed on a commercial lot adjacent to a residential lot, Mr. Rossbach felt the setback should be from the residential property line and not from the unit. He also pointed out a conflict between mentioning the possibility of a tower going into an area with large parking light standards and then not allowing any lights on the poles (Section 36- 608 on page 8). Peter Beck, representing AT&T Wireless Services, was present. Mr. Beck discussed various opinions he had for improvement in the ordinance. He pointed out that the city has a right to make a case-by-case decision on city-owned property, if the ordinance allows that opportunity, without entering into a lease. Mr. Beck said they are typically looking for this type of location, i.e. open space, inactive area, which would allow a small access drive with minimal use. Mr. Beck thought the definition of tower should clarify that it is a structure designed solely for communication-type uses. He suggested that tower height be allowed to a maximum of 100 feet if it is designed to accommodate a co-locator rather than requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the extra height is necessary for the co-location of another provider's antenna. Mr. Beck said this height is required because about 25-feet vertical separation is needed to co-locate. He said 75-feet is about as Iow as the tower can go because it is necessary to clear tree-tops. Commissioner Kittridge asked what changes were necessary to design a tower for co-location. Mr. Beck said they had to be tall enough for vertical separation, strong enough to accommodate two sets of antennas and ensure that there is sufficient diameter in the middle for two sets of cable lines. Mr. Beck said that typically towers are not allowed in front setback areas but are placed to the edge of the property in the back or on the sides. The reason is to locate the tower as far away from the active areas of the site as possible. He pointed out that suburban areas such as Maplewood often have large, deep residential lots with significant vegetation. In some of these Planning Commission Minutes of 11-04-96 cases, the best location for the pole is either up to or within 75 or 100 feet of the line. He felt the tower should be set back a distance of the height of the pole from any home. Mr. Beck suggested that the city require a monopole construction for safety and esthetic reasons. He explained the need and process for antenna modification after the tower is constructed. Mr. Beck wanted to be clear that the city would not ask for conditional use or building permit review for these modifications. Mr. Beck thought that most providers design their facilities in excess of the Uniform Building Code. He felt it would be better to require that the tower construction, installation, and maintenance comply with the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Beck also said if someone received a conditional use permit for a tower to accommodate two users, the second antenna should be able to go on as a building code issue (not have to go through the conditional use process). Tony Williams, representing American Portable Telecomm, also was present at the meeting. Since RF engineers are not certified as professional engineers, Mr. Williams asked that the engineer's stamp and registration number be required only if applicable. Commissioner Frost was in agreement with the proposed changes to the ordinance. He saw the only concern as to whether the setback should be from the property line or the building.. Commissioner Fischer mentioned Commissioner Rossbach's concern about city tower's being exempted. Staff was agreeable to having the ordinance be consistent in calling all towers monopoles. Various types and uses of towers were discussed. Commissioner Frost then suggested that it be necessary to go through the variance procedure to deviate from the property line setback requirement. Ms. Coleman said that going to the property line, as opposed to a residential structure, will exclude many sites. Commissioner Kittridge moved the Planning Commission table the tower and antenna ordinance until the November 18, 1996, Planning Commission meeting. The changes discussed at this meeting will be incorporated and considered at that meeting. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. October 26 City Council Meeting: Melinda Coleman reported on this meeting. B. November 12 City Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson is scheduled to attend this meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjoumed at 8:53 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Community Development Director Antenna and Tower Ordinance November 7, 1996 INTRODUCTION On December 18, 1995, the city council adopted a one-year moratorium on towers and antennas. The moratorium allowed staff time to study where and how the city code should allow these facilities. The primary objectives of the zoning ordinance are to protect adjacent land uses from possible adverse impacts and to regulate antennas and towers in a way that does not preclude their legitimate use. In addition, the moratorium prevented new towers and antennas from being constructed in Maplewood until the city adopts a new ordinance. BACKGROUND On October 21, 1996, the planning commission and several telecommunication industry representatives reviewed the first draft of the antenna and tower ordinance. The Commission and industry representatives suggested several changes to the proposed ordinance. On November 4, 1996, the planning commission and several telecommunication industry representatives reviewed the second draft of the antenna and tower ordinance. The Commission and industry representatives suggested several more changes to the proposed ordinance. City staff noted these suggestions and have made more changes to the proposed text. DISCUSSION Several telecommunication companies have approached Maplewood seeking permits to construct wireless telecommunications facilities. As proposed, the ordinance relates to cellular telephone towers, antennas and rooftop apparatus needed to operate for this rapidly changing technology. Staff modeled the ordinance after ordinances that Bloomington and Woodbury recently adopted. The League of Minnesota Cities developed model language and helpful direction, research and other information from cities around the United States. This information has been very useful and staff has used some of this language in the proposed ordinance to fit the city's needs. Currently, there are six towers and associated facilities in the city. KSTP has two sites on the east and west sides of Highway 61 and south of Beam Ave. They have five towers that are between five and six hundred feet tall. The other tower, which I believe belongs to AT&T, is located south of Highwood Avenue and west of Century Avenue. As proposed, new towers and antennas would be a permitted use on existing facilities, water towers, sides or roofs of buildings or structures over two stories and existing power or telephone poles. In all other districts and instances, the ordinance requires the owner to get a conditional use permit. City staff wrote the ordinance to allow towers in residential districts if the applicant can show the proposed' tower location is necessary to meet the cellular telephone coverage and capacity that otherwise could not be served. The proposed ordinance restricts towers in residential districts to 75 feet in height. Some cities have prohibited towers altogether in residential districts. This approach may be at odds with the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act. This law bars cities from actions that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless telephone services and facilities in their cities. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the ordinance starting on page 3. This ordinance establishes regulations about commercial use antennas and towers in Maplewood. Attachment: Proposed ordinance p:~oro%tower.3 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE CITY CODE BY ADDING LANGUAGE ABOUT ANTENNAS AND TOWERS. The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section changes Section 36-66(b) by adding the following: (3) Antennas and towers as reaulated by Section 36-606. Section 2. This section changes Section 36-84.7 as follows: (i have crossed out deletions and underlined the additions.) Section 36-84.7 Radio tower, television antenna and flagpole setbacks. ~ Citizen band radio towers, amateur radio towers, television antennas and flaQr~oles in an R-1 district shall maintain a five-foot setback from all property lines... Section 3. This section adds the following to the Maplewood City Code: (Additions have been underlined.) CHAPTER 36 ARTICLE COMMERCIAL USE ANTENNAS AND TOWERS Section 36-600. Purpose. To accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while rotectin the ublic health safet and eneral welfare of the communit the Ma lewood Cit Council finds that these regulations are necessary to: 1_. Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city,. 2_. Minimize adverse visue! effects of towers throu,qh careful design and siting standards. Avoid potential dama,qe to adjacent properties from tower failure throu,qh structura.! standards and setback requirements. 4. Maximize the use of existina and approved towers and buildin,qs for new wireless_ -- telecommunication antennas to reduce the number of towers nccded to serve th ~ community. Goals in adopting this ordinance include the following: 1_. Minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful des .qn and siting standards. 2. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standard~ and setback requirements. Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings for new wireles- telecommunications antennas to reduce the number of towers needed to serve thc community. 4_. Promote the use of public land, buildings and structures for wireless communication= whenever possible. 5. Freestanding monopoles and towers shall be designed and installed to encourage two co-locations of facilities on the same structure or on the same site. 6. The following preferences shall be followed when selecting sites: a. Pdmary structural location preference for wireless communication equipment as permitted uses. Water towers. Co-location on existing towers. Church steeples or the church structure, when camouflaged as steeples, bell towers, or other architectural features. Sides and roofs of buildings or structures over two stodes. ExistinQ Dower or telephone pole corridors. Light Doles or towers at outdoor recreational facilities. Parking lots may be used to locate monopoles where the structure replicates, incorporates or substantially blends with the overall lighting standards and fixture.~ of the parking lot. b. Primary land use areas for monopoles requ ring conditional use permits. Industrial. Government, school, church or places of worship, utility, and institutional sites. Public parks/.qolf courses, when compatible with the nature of the park or course. Open space areas when compatible with the nature of the area and site. Section 36-601. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section or ordinance shall have the follow n.q meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: 1. Accessory structure. A structure located on the tower or antenna site customarily incidental to the receiving or transmitting of radio or television proqrams, radio and telephone receivinl'! wave transmit/receive antennas designed for dispatching or use with household electronic, equipment, including "ham" radio equipment. 4 5 Antenna. That portion of any equipment located on the exterior or outside any structure, used_ for transmittin,q or receivin.q radio or television waves... Antenna Cellular Tele hone. A device consistin of a metal carbon fibre or other electroma net/call conductive rods or elements usuall arran ed in a circular arra on a sinc~le supportin~ pole or other structure, and used for transmission and reception of radio. waves in wireless telephone communications. Antenna Public Ut/Ii Microwave. A arabolic dish or comuco ia sha ed electroma net/call reflective or conductive element used for the transmission and/or rece t/on of pint to pint UHF or VHF radio waves in wireless communications and includin an su ortin structure. Antenna Radio and Television Broadcast Transmittin . A wire set of wires metal or carbon fibre rod or other electroma netic element used to transmit ublic or commercial broadcast radio or television ro rammin and includin the su ort structure thereof. Antenna, Satellite Dish. A device incorporatin.q a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar confi,qured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, horn, or cornucopia. Such a device shall be used to transmit and/or receive radio or electroma netic waves between terrestdall and/or orb/tall -based uses. This definition includes but is not limited to what are commonly known as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television receive only), and satellite microwave antennas. Antenna Short-wave Radio Transmittin and Receivin . A wire set of wires or a device consistin of a metal carbon fibre or other electroma net/call conductive element used for the transmission and rece t/on of radio waves used for short-wave radio communications and includin.q the supportin.q structure thereof. Public Utility. Persons, corporation, or ,qovemments supplyin.cl .aas, electric, transportation, water, sewer, or land line tstephone service to the public. For this ordinance, commercia! wireless telecommunication sources shall not be considered ublic ut/Ii uses. Tower. Any pole, spire, or structure, or combination designed for attachin,q antennas and all su_nportin.cl lines, cables, wires, braces and masts. Section 36-602. Existin~i antennas and towers_. Antennas towers and accesso structures in existence as of ~ ordinance ado t/on that do not meet or cpm I with this section are sub'ect to the foliowin provisions.'. 1. Towers may continue in use for the existinc~ purpose now used and as now existina but may not be replaced or structurally altered without meetin~i all standards in this section,. 2. If such towers are dama ed or destro ed due to an reason or cause at all unless the user -- or owner voluntaril removes the tower the owner or o erator ma re air and restore the tower to its former size he/ ht and use within one 1 ear after ettin a buildin ermit from the ci . The location and h s/cai dimensions shall remain as the were before the dama e or destruction. 5 Section 36-603. Interpretation. It is not the intention of this ordinance to interfere with, abro.qate or annul any covenant or other agreement between parties. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions upon tho, use or premises for antennas or towers than are imposed or required by other ordinances, rules, re.qulations or permits, or by covenants or a,qreements, the provisions of this ordinance shall govern. Section 36-604. Inspections and Violations. ao All towers, mo~epete~ antennas and supportinl:l structures must obtain a building permit and are subject to inspection by the city building official to determine compliance with UBC. construction standards. Deviations from the od.qinal construction that a permit is obtained, other than antenna adjustments, is a misdemeanor. Notice of violations will be sent by re.qistered mail to the owner and the owner will have thirt~ ('30~ days from the date the notification is issued to make repairs. The owner will notify thn building official that the repairs have been made, and as soon as possible after that, tho, buildini:l official will make another inspection and the owner notified of the results. Adjustments or modifications to existin.q antennas do not require a conditional use permit or n buildin~ ~ermit. Section 36-605. Conditional Use Permit. a. In reviewin,q an application for a conditional use permit for the construction of commercial antennas, towers, monopoles and accessory structures, the city council shall consider the: (1) Standards in the city code, ~ Recommendations of the plannin.q commission and desi,qn review board. (3) Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of residents of surroundinl:l areas, (4) Effect on property values, (5) Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. b. The applicant shall provide at the time of application, sufficient information to show that construction and installation of the antenna or tower will meet or exceed the standards and requirements of the UBC {'Uniform Buildinl:l Code) and that such a facility or equipment would not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons. c~ Conditional use permits will not be required for: (1) Repair or replacement or adjustment of the elements of an antenna array affixed to ~ tower or antenna, if the repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor. ~2) Antennas mounted on water towers, sides or roof of existin,q structures and on ex stin,q towers, power, li.qht, or telephone poles. d~ The fee to be paid for the conditional use permit shall be set by city council resolution. 6 Section 36-606. Cellular Telephone Towers Proposed in Residential Districts. No person, firm or corporation shall build or install a tower or monopole in a residential zone without obtaining a conditional use permit. Such a tower or monopole shall be subject to, but no.t. limited to, the following conditions: 1_:..The applicant shall demonstrate by providin,q a covera.qe/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that location of the tower as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse ---nd spacin!:l needs of the cellular system, and to provide adequate portable cellular telephone covera.qe and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in. a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, tower or antenna. 2. The antennas shall be located on an existin.q structure if possible, and shall not extend more -- than twenty-five (25) fs=t above the hei~lht of the structure to which they are attached. 3_. If no existin,q structure that meets the hei,qht requirements for the antennas is available for mounting the antennas, such antennas may be mounted on a monopole not to exceed seventy-five (75) feet in hei.qht. The monopole shall be located a distance of at least the hei,qht of the monopole from the nearest residential structure, unless a qualified structuf'.al en.clineer specifies in wfitin.q that any collapse of the pole will occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances and if the city council approves a lesser setback, 4. The height of a tower may be increased to a maximum of one hundred (100) feet if the tower is designed for the co-location of another provider's antenna. 5~. Transmitting, receivin.q and switching equipment shall be in an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receivin,q and switching. the owner or operator shall locate it at least ten (10) feet from the side or rear lot line and shall landscape and screen it. The community design review board shall review such a building, landscaping and screening. Section 36-607. Construction Requirements, Setback and Height Restrictions in Districts or Locations Other Than Residential. No part of any tower or antenna shall be constructed, located or maintained at any time, permanently or temporarily, in or upon any required setback area for the district in whicl', the antenna or tower is to be located. b. All antennas, towers and accessory structures shall meet all applicable provisions of this code and this section. c_. Antennas and towers shall meet the following requirements: ~ The antennas may be mounted on a single pole or monopole not to exceed one hundred seventy-five (175) feet in height. The pole shall be setback at least the height of the polo plus twenty-five (25) feet from any residential lot line. 2J~ Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. 7 Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screenin,q possible for off-site views of the facility. Existin,q on-site ve,qetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent. The installation shall be desi,qned to be compatible with the underlying site plan. Thc ..owner or operator shall landscape the base of the tower and any accessory structures. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be desi.qned to be architecturall~ compatible with any principal structures on the site. The community design review board shall review the design of any accessory structures, equipment buildin.qs and site landscaping. Towers shall be a li,qht blue or ,qray or other color shown to reduce visibility. No advertising or identification visible off-site shall be placed on the tower or buildin!:ls. Antennas placed upon the tower shall comply with all state and federal re.qulations about nonionizin.q radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities. (10) (11) Wireless telephone antennas, where located on an existin.q structure shall not extend more than twenty-five (25) feet above the structure to which they are attached. Such antennas are a permitted use in all zonin.q districts of the city. Towers with antennas shall be desil:lned to withstand a uniform wind loading a,' prescribed by the UBC (Uniform Buildin,q Code). Telecommunications equipment located on the side of an existin,q str¥cture or on a roof of a structure shall not be screened. Section 36-608. Li,qhts and Other Attachments. No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way any li.qhts, reflectors, flashers, daytime strobes or steady nighttime li.qht or other illuminating devices except: Those needed durinf:l time of repair or installation, 2. Those required by the Federal Aviation A.qency, the Federal Communications Commission or the city. 3. For towers in parkin.q lots. liahts associated with the parkin¢l lot li.qhtinq. In addition, no tower shall have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform, catwalk, crow'snest, or like structure, except durinfl periods of construction or repair. Section 36-609. Removal of Abandoned or Damaged Towers. Any tower and/or antenna that is not used for one (1) year shall be deemed abandoned and ma~ be required to be removed in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for dan,qerous or unsafe structures established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 throu~ih 463.26. Section 36-610. Co-location of Personal Wireless Communication Service Equipment. A proposal for a new personal wireless service tower shall not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the city council that the telecommunicatiuns equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existin.q or approved tower or cornn~ercial building within one-half mile radius, transcending municipal borders, of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following: The planned equipment would excccd the strUctural capacity of the existing or approved tower or commercial building. 2_. The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building. 3_. Existing or approved strUctures and commercial buildings within one-half mile radius cannot or will not reasonably accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to functiun, 4. For residential district sites, the applicant must demonstrate, by providing a city-wide -- covera,qe/interference and capacity analysis, that the location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the cellular system, and to provide adequate portable cellular telephone coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district or on existing structure. 5_. For all commercial wireless telecommunications service towers, a letter of intent committing the tower, the owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user a.qrees in wdtinl:l to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. Section 36-611. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications. All new or existin,q telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with public safety telecommunications. Section 36-612. Additional Submittal Requirements. Additional Submittal Requirements. Besides the information required elsewhere in this Code, buildin.ci permit applications for towers shall include the following supplemental information: 1-. A report and plans from a qualified and re,qistered engineer or others that: a_. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. c_. Describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can hold. 9 d~ Includes an en,qineer's stamp and registration number, if applicable. e~ Includes all other information necessary for the city to evaluate the request. Section 36-613. Variances. The City may ,qrant variances to the requirements of this section. All variances must follow the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect after the city council approves it and the official newspaper publishes it. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on 1996. 10 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Wetland Buffer Variance - General Sprinkler Corporation County Road D, East of Highway 61 November 5, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Frank Winiecki, of General Sprinkler Corporation, is proposing to build a 13,200-square-foot, one- story building for his business. This building would be on the south side of County Road D east of Highway 61. This site is 1,100 feet northeast of the new Lexus dealership on Highway 61. Refer to the maps on pages 6-7. Request The applicant is requesting that the city council approve a variance for a narrower wetland-protection buffer. Refer to the proposed site plan on page 8. City code requires a wetland buffer of 100 feet for this site. The proposed undisturbed buffer would range in width from 40 feet to 100 feet. Mr. Winiecki, therefore, is asking for a variance of up to 60 feet in reduced buffer width. Please see the site plan date-stamped November 1, 1996 on page 8 and the separate attachment. The city code requires the wetland buffer to protect the adjacent wetland surrounding this site. The Ramsey-Washington Metro District classified this wetland as a Class 1 wetland. Class 1 wetlands are those with conditions and functions most susceptible to human impact, are most unique and have the highest community resource significance. Mr. VViniecki plans to apply for design approval if the city council grants this variance. BACKGROUND On June 17, 1996, the planning commission tabled action on this proposal and required the applicant to resubmit a revised site plan. On July 15, 1996, the planning commission considered a revised site plan (date-stamped June 27, 1996) for this site. The planning commission recommended that the city council deny the wetland-protection buffer setback variance. On September 16, 1996, the planning commission considered another plan (date-stamped September 4, 1996) for this site. The commission tabled action on this plan to allow staff to get more information from the Ramsey-Washington Watershed District about the nearby wetlands. On October 7, 1996, the planning commission again tabled action on a proposal for this site. This was at the request of Mr. Winiecki so he could work with an environmental consultant about the wetlands and setbacks. DISCUSSION Mr. Winiecki's revised site plan varies considerably from the previous proposed site plans. The revised plan reduces the building area from 14,784 square feet to 13,200 square feet. Mr. Winiecki has now oriented the proposed building parallel to County Road D facing north. The biggest difference between the proposed plan and the previous plans is the locations of the wetland edges. Mr. Winiecki hired Peterson Environmental Consultants to review the watershed district wetland delineation and to make their own decision about the wetland locations and types. The watershed district staff met with the consultant and has reviewed their report. (See the memo from Pat Conrad on page g and the memo from Peterson Environmental Consulting starting on page 10.) After reviewing the information from Mr. Winiecki's consultant, the watershed district decided that the wetland delineation does not include the ditches or streams on both sides of the site. On the east and south sides of the site, the wetland edge is now south and east of the ditch. This leaves an undisturbed buffer erea of at least 65 feet on the east and south sides of the site. The proposed site plan shows the wetland at least 120 feet south of the south property line. The watershed district, however, does not have enough information or documentation to verify this location. They want Mr. Winiecki to have his consultant locate the edge of the wetland south of the ditch and then they would verify the consultant's work. On the west side of the site, Mr. Winiecki now shows the wetland edge as the top of the west* bank of the west ditch. This provides at least 40 feet of undisturbed area between this wetland edge and the bottom of the spoil pile on the east side of the west ditch. Mr. Winiecki proposes to grade the site up to the bottom of the spoil piles on the east side of the ditch. The proposed undisturbed wetland buffer should be wide enough to meet the intent of the code. Wetland buffers serve as a way to preserve water quality, lessen development impact and provide wildlife habitat and aesthetic benefit. As now proposed, the plan is meeting these needs. Lexus Site Regarding the Lexus variance, the city council allowed the reduced wetland buffer width because of the poor condition of the existing buffer on that site. The previous owner had filled and compacted the Lexus site over many years. As such, the land next to the wetland did not provide any benefit as a wetland buffer. The city council decided that a 25-foot-wide functional buffer would be more beneficial than a 100-foot-wide hard-packed, nonfunctional buffer. Mr. Winiecki's situation is different. Most of the land next to the ditches and wetlands on Mr. Winiecki's site is in its natural state and has vegetative cover. As such, its usefulness as a wetland buffer has not diminished. Variance Request Protecting wetlands is the intent of the wetland setback ordinance. This ordinance provides for reduced setback standards for lesser-quality wetlands. The watershed district, however, classified the adjacent wetland as a Class I wetland-the highest-quality wetland. If the district felt that this was a lesser-quality wetland, they would have reduced its classification. The city ordinance would then have allowed more land area for development on this site. 2 RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page 15. This resolution approves a 60-foot wetland buffer variance for the proposed General Sprinkler Corporation building on County Road D, east of Highway 61. The city should approve this variance because: The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District has classified the adjacent wetland as a Class 1 wetland-the most significant wetland type. The proposed variance would not be excessive and would still protect the wetland, which is the intent of the ordinance. The applicant has shown that strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. Undue hardship means the owner or developer cannot put the property to a reasonable use if the city denies the variance. The 100-foot-wide wetland buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. The wetland ordinance created the difficulty and the proposed variance is not excessive. 3. The proposal offers protection to the wetland for wildlife habitat and aesthetic enhancement, which are also functions of a wetland buffer. Approval is subject to the applicant or owner doing the following: 1. Submitting a certificate of survey for the area that shows the location of: a. The ditch and wetland to the south and east of the site. b. The ditch and wetland to the west of the site. c. All property lines. d. County Road D and any existing utilities. e. The existing culverts for the ditches on either side of the site. f. The location, size and species of any large trees on the site. Submitting a grading and landscaping plan for the perimeter areas of the site between the driveways and parking lot and the wetland edge (including the wetland buffer). This plan shall be subject to the requirements of the city staff and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Dedicating a wetland-buffer easement. This easement shall be prepared a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record the deed for this easement before the city will issue a building permit. 4. Follow the site plan date-stamped November 1, 1996, subject to any changes required by city staff or the community design review board (CDRB). 5. Accepting responsibility for any necessary maintenance and upkeep of the ponding area and any sump catch basins. 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.79 acres Existing land use: undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and 1-694 South: Undeveloped property West: Two single dwellings East: Northern States Power substation and driveway PAST ACTION February 26, 1996: The city council approved a wetland buffer reduction vadance of 75 feet for the new Lexus Dealership. The code required 100 feet, but the council allowed Lexus to provide a 25-foot-wide buffer. This was because of the poor condition of the existing buffer on the Lexus site. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Ordinance Requirements Section 9-196(h)(3) requires a 100-foot-wide wetland-preservation buffer adjacent to the wetlands that are near the proposed site. Findings for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique tO the. property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 4 "Undc, e hardship," as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. p:sec3\winiecki.5th Attachments: 1. LocatJon Map 2. Property Une/Zoning Map 3. 11-1-96 Site Plan 4. 10-28-96 memo from Watershed District 5. 10-28-96 memo from Paterson Environmental Consulting 6. Wetland Setback Variance Resolution 7. Site Plan date-stamped November 1,1996 (separate attachment) VADNAIS COUNTY HEIGHTS RD. D 1, SUMMIT CT. 2., COUNTRYVIEW CIR. 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA ST. BEAM COUNTY KOHLMAN AVE. ROAD ~ 0 ~ GERVAIS AVE. COPE LOCATION Attachment 1 COUNTY Z o AVE. ( RADATZ MESSABI CO~ CO, AVE GERVAIS VIKING SHERREN AVE. DEMONT BROOKS AVE. Z Kn ~ ad LARK MAP EDGEHILL RD. GERVAIS CT. AVE. Attachment 2 3110 LEXUS · 3000 BACKYARD BUILDING SYSTEMS ~' ~ $~ ~ VADNAIS HEIGHTS A (~) ~0.\5 Mt Attachment 3 WETLAND EDG NOV- ) ~ _ COUNTY ROAD D I' PROPOSED BUILDING EXISTING DITCH ! ! PROPERTY LINE , L _':=**'---**---~ / · WETLAND EDGE EXISTING DITCH:.",: /,,7'.:y .? '/~',.. SITE PLAN . Ramsey-Washington Metro Attachment 4 Maplewood, MN 55109 (612) 777-3665 fax (6t2) 777-6507 October 28th, 1996 Scott Krych Pctcrson Environmenr~al Re: General Sprinkler Dear Mr Krych Thank you for meeting with the District TEP panel to discuss the wetland delineation at the above referenced site. The purpose of this letter is to sunmaarize the conclusions of the TEP panel meeting. The wetland delineation along the eastern ditch was moved to the opposite side of the ditch at a maximum. The wetland begins on the east md south side of the eastern ditch. The wetland along the western ditch was also moved to the western bank of the ditch. The a~ea to the west of the western ditch will be considered wetland until the applicant can show that the hydrology parameter is not met. The TEP panel needs to see conclusive evidence in the form of water level measurements th'oughout the growing season which show that the hydrology parameter is not met. If you have any questions regarding this site plel~e contact me at 77%3665. Sincerely, PatKcek J. Conrad District Technician cc Ken Roberts IO ZOEgZZL~I9 ~:II 966I/8~/0I Attachemnt 5 I I;ETERSON ENVIRONMENIAL CONSULTINGr INC. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Melinda Coleamu, City ~~, Ronald P. Peterson, Presltieht-'~ ~ Mike DeRuyter, Soils S~cialis~,r~'~...; _ Scott Krych, Professional Wetland Scientist,o~~~- Mike Graham, Professional Wetland Scientist4'~'<,~''e-~ October 28, 1996 Frank Winiecki Site, County Road D, Maplewood PEC Project No. 96-089 Pm' otu earlier telephone conversations, Pcterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC), has undertaken additional coordination with the Ramsey-Washingtc!n-Metro Watershed District CRWMWD) in order to review their wetland delineation on properties adjoining the Winiecki property. Thc purpose of this memorandum is to document revisions made to the wetland delineation and to address thc City's wetland buffer requirements as they pertain to the subject property. W~tland Delineation : The wetland was originally delineated by the Ramsey-Washiagtoa Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) on the northern and eastern sides of two ditches which parallel the southern and western site boundaries. According to field observation~ made by PEC staff on October 14 and 15, 1996, the delineated areas consist of a forested'.peatland which has been drained and filled. The area is not indicated as wetland on lNational Wetlands Inventory maps, and soils are identified as earthy fill material over Organic soils by the Soil Survey of Washington and Ramsey Couaties. As indicated by the soft survey, softs on the site coz~dst of various fill materials, includiug peat (See Attached Data Forms). Direct evidence of wetland hydrologY was not present at the time of the sitc visit. The strongest evidence of dimabed hydro, logy ia the wetland was the presence of non-saturated peat. Because these soils develol~ due to a persistent water table within 6 inches of the surf'ar.e, free water surfer, es at depths of 18 inches or more indicate an altered hydrologic regime. Watcr tables at the time of the site visit were observed at depths of approximately 30 inches. When histosols!. (peats) are drained, i were obs~ved at depths of approximately 30 inches. Whea histosols (peats) are drained, the organic material begins to decay and subside. Surface roots of bOx eiders are exposed in thc area by subsidence. These exposed roots and bases of treei trunks likcly r~flect subsidenee and not arr. action to pending or inundation, as there wer~ no drift lines, water marks, or sediment deposits which would suggest flooding or ~nundation. Other evidence of subsidence includes very well granulated organic surfa~.:s, and very low bulk · densities above the water table. Undisturbed peatlands are normally domina~d by obliga~ (OBLj wetland vegetation such as sedges, cattails, willows, etc. The area north of the ditch cdrrently is dominated by facultative-upland (FACD~ vegetation, with the t~malnder of the plant community composed of facultative (FAC') and facultative-wet (FACW) vegeta~on. Due to the fact that the a~ does n~t meet the wetland vegetation or hydrology ~titeria, the wetland boundary was moved to the south and west sides of the ditch. Thk 10-foot wide spoil bank on the western side of thc ditch is dominated by creepin~ charlie (Glecoma hederacea, FACU) and common buckthom (Rhamnm cathart~ca, FAC-) and is topographically 1-2 feet higher than the rest of the wetland; therefore it is our position that it should also be considered upland. However, the RWMWD ~ no! conceded the spoil pile to be upland. The new "questionable" wetland boundaty, i therefore, is shown on Figure ! as being at the south and west edgc of the drainage ditch, essentially at the property boundary. This new line has been agreed to by the RWMWD (see attached letter dated October 28, 1996). The area within this revised bounda~ is considered to be questionable since it appears to lack wetland hydrology. The plant community within the revised wetland boundary is do~ by FACW, FACU and FAC species and is underlain by histosols, however the at~a may lack wetland hydrology. Because histosols have such a high moisture holding cal~ity, it has been our experience that climax plant communities in drained peatlands are not dominated by species characteristic of uplands, but rather species more commohly associated with transitional ~tlsad areas. Further hydrologic investiga~on may'; prove the revised "questionable" wetland area is also non-jurisdictional. Since wetland hydrology cannot be accurately determined at this time, we are assuming that this area is jurisdictional. WETLAND BUFFEI~ ~ The Ci~r of Maplewood has recently mandated that buff= zones bel maintained around the perimeter of wetlands and that a 10-foot setback fxom the buffer ~lg¢ be requir~ for building foundations (Buildings and Buildin~ Regulations Code (Sec. ~.195)). The width of the buffer zone varies depending upon how the wetland was cl~." in the RWMWD Wetlands Inventory. The subject wetland has been classified as Class:.l which means that it was designated as Uniqu~ and Outstanding in the wetetshed disl~et inventory. The buffer zone required around Class 1 wetlands is 100 feet. The current development plan for the property would require an encroachment of the southwest comer of the building foundation of 15 feet into the wetland buffer zon~ (this includesi the additional 10' building setback). An additional 45 feet of encroachment wottld occur for the Page 2 construction of parking area, an enUance mad and landscaping on the west side of the building. Thc buffer zone encroachment distances given are ba~ed on the wetland boundary including thc spoil bank on thc west side of thc ditch ~ determined by thc RWMWD. B.~IS FOR ¥~CE REQI. I~T : We have reviewed the variance provisions in the Maplewood Wetiand Ordinance and believe a variance would be warranted in the portion of the Winieci~i property that falls withi~i the buffer. The rca.sons a variance appears warranted are as foBows: (1) The spirit and iu~-nt of the City's wetland ordinance can readi.'ly be served by a reduced buffer along ~he west side of the Winiecki property. The ordinance states that buffers "are integral to maintaining the valUable functions many wctlands perform. Buffers reduce the impacts of surrounding land We on wetlands and slrearns by stabilizing soil to prevent erosion by storrnwater; filter~ suspended solids, nutrients and harmful substances; and moderating war~r level fluctuations during storms. Buffers also provide esscntial wildlife habitat Finally, buffers i'educe the adverse impacts of human activities on wetlancls and streams." Certainly, ~plands adjaccnt to wetlands in most locations serve most or all of these functions. H .o~'ver, in this case, these buffer functions are not being provided in thc buffer zone area ~where development would occur on the Winiecki property. In looking at a cross-sectional view of the site (Figure 2), the buffer zone within thc propen'y is primarily composed of the drainage ditch, an artificial berm crealed throu~l thc deposition of old ditch spoil and an adjacent area on the other siite of the spoil pile. The berm prevents storm water from running off the site into the ~ljacent ditch under existing conditions; this spoil pile would remain with thc proposed:development. Thc proposcd project plan would develop the property up to the edge of .the berm so that any water uot contained within thc storm water lreaunent pond on-site wo~ld be contained by the berm. The 4$'-wide area proposed for development within the buffer zone is not · currently servin~ as a buffer to lhe questionable wetland area by pioviding any of the water quality functions identified in the City ordinance. Even if storm water were allowed to run off-si~e, the existing drainage ditch would prevent this ;water from entering the quesgonable wetland arca. The undisturbed buffer area consisting of the top of the spoil pile and the sideslope of the ditch are sparsely vegeta~l ~xl are currently not serving the questionable wetland by providing erosion prevention; '.filtering suspended solids, nuuients and harmful substances; or moder~ing water level flUcumlions. Fm, ther, the highly disturbed nature of the buffe~ zone has resulted in limited wildlife habitat value..The remainder of the buffer zone consists of the drainage dish itseff and a spoil pile on the western b,,,i~ of the ditch. The drainage diw, h provides a watcr quality function To thc qucstionablc wetland by not allowing storm water to ~..entcr the area unless the ditch floods. This drainage ditch would not be impacted by the proposed project Figure 2. Cwss-Scctional View of West Property Boundary Revised eQuestiomtble'~ . We~nd Aren West PropeFty Boundary ~ Limits Ditch of Pru efly Mr. Winiecki is also proposing to construct a stormwater treatment .p~,nd on-site to ensure pre-treatment of any nmoff from impervious surfaces prior to itsl discharge into the County Ditch. Ongoing coordination will be maintained with thc RWMWD nd the City Engineer to ~xsure that the pond is designed to meet all applicable water quality standards. : (2) Strict enforcement of the ordinance would work an undue hardshil~ on the applicant. ! We believe that a variance from the buffer and building setback requi~emen~ sre justified in this case. It is apparent that the portion of the subject property within the buffer zone is not serving any of the buffer functions s~t forth in the City Ordinance. A strict enforcement of the buffer and building setback requirements would r~sult in a hardship to the project proposer since the proposed building and associated pa~ king lot cannot be rcconfigured to avoid thc buffer zone. The unique shape of the prol~Tty does not allow for as many aJtemagve desi?-q or buiJdin~ locations as might otherwise be available on a more rectangular site. Further, although there is no jurisdictional wetland actually on the property, the property is encumbered by the maximum setback allowed by the City ordinance. Also, the only wetland area remaining, around which {he buffer has been placed, appears to be non-jurisdictional. PEC's dm on veaetatio,'n alone shows the questionable area to be mi_t,i~.~ on~ of thc thr~ r~,na,tory pm'am .e~ and to be non- wetland. It would be a hardship to require Mr. Wini~ki to lose aa entire construction season to undertake an exterlsive hydrologic study on property he do~s aot own, when data is ~y available that cl~no~s its non-jurLsdictional status'. Lastly, the quality of the w,ztlaud lobe ~i, ound which the lO0-foot l~uffer is dasigmted does not by itself meet ~ d~,~ition of a Clas~ I w~tland. Its Class I designation is apparcmly thc result of being connected to a larger class I wctl~d sysmn off-site a substantial distance to the south. An ~aluation of the questionabl~ w~,land srea iiself ~ the RWMWD functio~ and values methodology would re.mit in a classification lower than Class 1 with a r~sultant narrower buffer zone. Page 4 13 We propose h'~ a variance be appwved allo.wing thc buffer zone edge along thc western ', property boundary 1o bc revised to ~5 feet, which would put it at thcicdg of the existing spoil pile on the gte. This would have no adverse affect on thc questionable wetland that the buffer protects since there would be virtually no change in water ~uality or eromon of the wetland. The very limi~ wildlife habitat value being pwvided .~y thc buffer in this area would have no meaningful adverse impact on local wildlife pop~aQom. The current buffer area is highly disturbeA from past ditching and grading acuvmes and is not an area of high wildlife use nor is it rare or valuable wildlife habitat. Even though the portion of the buffer zone where project impacts w~uld take place is not providing buffer functions, the project proposer did consider several glternaQve designs in an attempt to mlnlmizc buffer cncwachmcnt. The building was moved from its originally planned locatiou along the southwest property boumlsry to a location along the north property boundary. This minimized the degree of encroachment into'ithe building setback and buffer zone from approximately a 40-foot encroachment along the entire length of the building to a 15-foo! encroachment of the southwestern corner of the building. The two access roads are needed on either side of the building so ~ pulling trailers can easily and safely enter and exit the site and can site when backing up to loading docks. CC: Frank Winiecki, General Sl~'inklcr Pat Conrad, Ramsey-Washington Metro Walershed District Page 5 14 large semi tra~tors naneuver within the Attachment 6 WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Frank Winiecki of General Sprinkler Corporation applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property on the south side of County Road D, east of Highway 61. The legal description is: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 525 WHEREAS, Section 36-196(h)(3) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 100-foot-wide wetland buffer. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 40-foot-wide wetland buffer. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 60 feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On November 18, 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. The city council held a public hearing on December ,1996. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has classified the adjacent wetland as a Class 1 wetland-the most significant wetland type. The proposed variance would not be excessive and would still protect the wetland, which is the intent of the ordinance. The applicant has shown that strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. Undue hardship means the owner or developer cannot put the property to a reasonable use if the city denies the variance. The 100-foot-wide wetland buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. The difficulty was created by the ordinance and the proposed vadance is not excessive. 3. The proposal offers protection to the wetland for wildlife habitat and aesthetic enhancement, which are also functions of a wetland buffer. 15 Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Submitting a certificate of survey for the area that shows the location of: a. The ditch and wetland to the south and east of the site. b. The ditch and wetland to the west of the site. c. All property lines. d. County Road D and any existing utilities. e. The existing culverts for the ditches on either side of the site. f. The location, size and species of any large trees on the site. Submitting a grading and landscaping plan for the perimeter areas of the site between the driveways and parking lot and the wetland edge (including the wetland buffer). This plan shall be subject to the requirements of the city staff and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Dedicating a wetland-buffer easement. This easement shall be prepared a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record the deed for this easement before the city will issue a building permit. Follow the site plan date-stamped November 1, 1996, subject to any changes required by city staff or the community design review board (CDRB). Accepting responsibility for any necessary maintenance and upkeep of the ponding area and any sump catch basins. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996. 16 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Wetland-Buffer Width Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Maplewood Imports Addition 2780 North Highway 61 November 13, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Brian Rathke, of Ryan Companies, is proposing to build a 9,957-square-foot addition onto the south side of Maplewood Imports, 2780 North Highway 61. Refer to pages 9-11. The purpose of the addition is to provide for a new-vehicle delivery area, service write-up area, showroom, offices and customer waiting area. The applicant would add parking spaces as well. These would be added towards the rear of the site. Part of this new parking area would be on an existing graveled area and partly on an undeveloped area. Requests The applicant is requesting approval of the following: 1. A wetland-buffer width variance. The city code requires an average of a 100-foot-wide wetland buffer to the rear of this site by an adjacent wetland. The code allows this buffer to be as narrow as 50 feet in places. The applicant proposes as little as a zero-foot-wide buffer next to part of the wetland. Refer to the map on page 11 and the letter on pages 13-14. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) to add onto the building since the addition would be closer than 350 feet to a nearby residential district. The proposed addition would be 152 feet from the residential zone to the south. Refer to the map on page 11 and the letter on page 17. 3. Design approval of the architectural and site plans. DISCUSSION Wetland Buffer Variance The applicant has considered three alternative designs in an attempt to make this project work, as the letter on pages 13-14 indicates. These are: (1) avoid expansion towards the "finger" portion of the wetland and add parking to the south towards the residential neighbors; (2) fill the "finger" portion of the wetland under a provision of the Wetland Conservation Act, and (3) the current proposal which would preserve the "finger" but would cause grading up to its edge. Alternative Three, the applicant's proposal, is the best of the three options. As the applicant's letter explains, expanding to the south towards the residential neighbors would certainly impact them the most. Some of the neighbors are already worried that there may be negative affects on their property values and disruption of their neighborhood with the current plan. It is unlikely that the neighbors would be pleased if the project crept its way closer to their homes. The next option is equally disadvantageous from an environmental perspective. Cliff Aichinger, of the Ramsey-VVashington Metro Watershed District, stated that he would rather see a narrowed wetland buffer than see the loss of the wetland. This is not to say, however, that the applicant could have gotten a permit to fill the wetland from the watershed board. If the watershed board would deny such a request, the applicant would then have to apply for the wetland buffer width variance as they have done already. The applicant's plan is a reasonable compromise to the city's wetland buffer requirements. As with the Lexus proposal, they would provide an improved buffer next to the "finger" with pretreatment areas to filter the parking lot runoff prior to discharge into the wetland. Another consideration is that the "finger" appears to have been created by the grading of the existing parking lot in the past and is not of a higher quality as is the main body of wetland. This has created a hardship for the property owner since the "finger" must be treated as a Class II wetland even though it has lesser characteristics. Mr. ^ichinger has stated that, even though this "finger" is of a lesser quality and appears man made, he is still compelled to consider it as a Class I wetland since it drains into the main body. Conditional Use Permit The proposed expansion meets the criteria for a CUP. The owners of one neighboring household, however, had two concerns. They suggested that the building expansion occur to the east or the north. There is no room north of the building to expand and expansion to the east would hide the addition from the front. One primary reason for the addition is to create a showroom for Mercedes. Showrooms need visibility from the street. Their second concern was about any potential negative affect on their property value. The Ramsey County Assessor's office has explained that there would not be any negative impact on thence neighboring property values. The site is already developed and there would not be any further encroachment towards the south other than the existing pavement. Granted, the proposed addition will extend 153 feet closer to the neighbors than the existing building. However, the nearest house to the south would still be 512 feet away. Consequently, there would not be any negative affect on property values. Neighbors' Concerns 1. Would the shoreland protection requirements be met regarding the maximum amount of hard-surface permitted? The shoreland protection ordinance requires that the applicant not exceed 50% of their property with impervious material (building, asphalt or concrete). The applicant is meeting this requirement since their impervious surface coverage would not exceed 40% and also since they would provide a pre-treatment method for storm runoff before the drainage enters the wetland. 2 2. Would the neighbors be inconvenienced in any way? The neighbors would be able to hear the sound of the construction as it takes place. After completion, however, there would not be any foreseeable disturbance from Maplewood Imports. 3. There should not be any driveway access allowed to Kohlman Avenue. Access to Kohlman Avenue is not proposed. The applicant would continue to use their present driveways at the frontage road. 4. Would any residential properties be depleted? This proposal would not eliminate or deplete any existing houses or residential properties. The applicant should provide a visual and noise buffer for the adjacent home owners to the south. The landscaping and screening ordinance requires screening where a parking lot is constructed next to property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for single- or double-dwelling use. This does not apply to the applicant's proposal. The north end of the property at 1263 Kohlman Avenue abuts Maplewood Imports' site. This lot, however, is planned and zoned as M-1 (light manufacturing). Though there is a house on the south end of the lot, this house is 512 feet away from the proposed parking lot. It is difficult to conclude, therefore, that the north end of this lot is used residentially. Design Considerations Buildin.q Desifln~ Roof-Equipment Screening and Trash Storage The building design is attractive. The community design review board, on November 12, waived the requirement for the screening of any new roof-top mechanical equipment. The CDRB required that the applicant paint the new units to match the building as required by the code. The CDRB felt that screening would be more noticeable than the equipment and it eventually becomes unsightly. The CDRB also felt that trash dumpster screening was not needed for the containers behind the building. They observed, however, that the applicant stored cardboard and wooden pallets on the north side of the building. The CDRB required that the applicant keep this area clean. They directed staff to monitor this area for tidiness. Additional screening may be required when the CUP is reviewed in one year if a problem persists. Parkin¢~ The number of parking spaces proposed would meet code requirements. The code requires 161 spaces- The applicant is proposing 190. Site Lights The new site lights should be designed or aimed so that they do not shine into any residential neighbors windows. COMMITTEE ACTION November 12, 1996: The CDRB approved the building design and site plans for Maplewood Imports' proposed expansion. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the resolution beginning on page 18. This resolution approves a 50-foot wetland buffer variance for the proposed parking lot expansion of Maplewood Imports at 2780 North Highway 61. Approval is based on the following findings: Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The hardship is caused by an old excavation on the site which evolved into a Iow-quality wetland. Due to its connection to a large, higher-quality wetland, the property owner would be required, by code, to provide a 50-foot setback. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would improve the quality of the wetland buffer by the pre-treatment of storm runoff prior to its discharge into the wetland. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Submitting a grading and landscaping plan subject to the requirements of the city staff and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for the wetland buffer. Dedicating a wetland-buffer easement. This easement shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record the deed for this easement before the city will issue a building permit. Adopt the resolution beginning on page 20. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to expand the auto dealership at 2780 North Highway 61 to be closer than 350 feet to the adjacent residential district. This permit is based on the standards required by ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: 1 All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be 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. Co Approval of the plans date-stamped September 27, 1996 for the building and parking lot expansion of Maplewood Imports, 2780 North Highway 61. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate and record a wetland-buffer easement. This easement shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Paint all proposed roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. The color must match the building color. (code requirement) b. Aim or shield all exterior site lights as required by code so they are not a nuisance to any neighbors. 4. Keep the trash storage and dumpster areas clean and picked up. If a problem develops, the city may require additional dumpster space and/or an enclosure at the time of future conditional use permit reviews. 5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. 6. This approval does not include the signs. Signage will be reviewed by staff through the sign permit process. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 5 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the surrounding property owners within 350 feet for their comment about this proposal. Of the 47 questionnaires mailed, I received six in favor, two were opposed, four had no comment and four neighbors submitted miscellaneous comments. In Favor 1. They are good neighbors- No problems. (Trepanier, 2170 6th Street, North St. Paul) 2. The 61 frontage should be all commercial. (D&R Development Co., 2688 Maplewood Drive) 3. I am in favor, however, adding a wood privacy fence and landscape trees would add a visual and noise buffer to both residents and Maplewood Imports. (Murphy, 1287 Kohlman Avenue) 4. Businesses are good for the tax base of our community. (Baden, 2973 Beebe Parkway) 5. They are good neighbors. (Andersen, 1324 Kohlman Avenue) 6. I am in favor because it does not involve me in any way and it is a nice site for my neighborhood. (Tucci, 1293 Kohlman Avenue) Opposed We don't need to expand any more car dealerships! Leave the land be - It doesn't have to be developed!! (Wright, 2684 English Street) An acceptable change would be to expand to the east or north of the building. Also, what, if any, impact would this have on property values and taxes'~ (Reitter-Swanson, 1308 Kohlman Avenue) ' Miscellaneous Comments o No opinion except the following question: Does the proposed development meet the watershed criteria for percent of hardened surfaces versus open ground'~ (Kliethermes, 2720 Maplewood Drive) ' I have no objection unless residential land owners are being inconvenienced. If any residents are affected in a negative way we will most certainly object to this plan. (Rhame, 1244 Kohlman Avenue) I do not object as long as they do not plan to seek entry or exit access from Kohlman Avenue now or in the future. (Buesing, 1247 Kohlman Avenue) I could debate both pros and cons of this issue, however, as long as residential property isn't depleted any more than it already has within that area (demolishing duplex for ABRA) I am in favor of growing small businesses. (Dorle, 2725 Clarence Street) 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 8.31 acres Existing land use: Maplewood Imports SURROUNDING LAND USES North: KSTP Radio Station South: Don's Auto Body and single dwellings which front on Kohlman Avenue West: Maplewood Drive (Highway 61) East: Undeveloped property (wetlands) PAST ACTIONS Maplewood Imports November 6, 1969: The city council approved plans for the original building. July 19, 1979: The council approved a CUP for a 3,900-square-foot shop addition. June 8, 1987: The council approved CUP for a 1,740-square-foot car wash addition. ° May 23, 1988: The council reviewed the CUP and approved it for an indefinite term. Projects with Wetland Issues February 26, 1996: The city council approved a 75-foot wetland setback variance for the new Lexus dealership on Highway 61. Code required 100 feet. Lexus was required to provide a "improved, quality" buffer in lieu of the poor-quality 100-foot-wide buffer that existed. On June 17, 1996 the planning commission first reviewed a proposal by Frank Wienicki, of General Sprinkler Corporation, for a wetland buffer width variance. Mr. Wienicki was proposing to provide as little as a ten-foot-wide buffer (the code required 100 feet) on his site north of the new Lexus dealership. The planning commission considered revisions to this proposal on July 15, September 16 and again on October 7, 1996. They tabled this review each time to give the Mr. Wienicki a chance to improve the plans and provide a wider buffer with less impact on the wetland. Mr. Wienicki is currently proposing a revised site plan which will soon be scheduled for planning commission review. PLANNING Land use plan designation and zoning: M-1 (light manufacturing) Ordinance requirements: M-1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-187(b) requires a CUP for any building or exterior use, except parking, in a M-1 district that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. Section 36-196(h)(3) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 100-foot-wide wetland buffer, with a minimum buffer width of 50 feet, for the proposed parking lot expansion. Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 20-23. Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. p:sec4\mapimpor, cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Hazelwood Land Use Plan 3. Property Line/Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Applicant's Variance Justification Dated November 6, 1996 6. Exhibit A- Parking Lot Setback from Wetland Edge 7. Exhibit B- Alternative Parking Layout Extending to the South 8. Applicant's CUP Narrative Statement Dated September 24, 1996 9. Variance Resolution 10. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 11. Plans date-stamped September 27, 1996 (separate attachment) 8 Atta VADNAIS *HEIGHTS KOHI.JaA~ 1. ~JMNIIT 2. COUNg~ 3. DULUTH ~69'. 4, LYDIA 59'. BEAM <~> GERVAIS AV~:. Loke LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 minlor arterial interchange Vednaia Heights major collec'~or ,'..'q IIIIIIIIII; arterial 694 BC Interchange _~__o II e_~t o r :iai CO major collec M_i.-,,. ,f [jor "coile c' P P I M-,1 !LBC y 36 ; E I ~ ,oo ~BOu{D ~"~'~' ('~) EXlSTIN lNG ,.,.,.co. / ~g~ .... ~'= ~PROPOSED ADDITION DON'S AUTO B( IMERClAL BUILDIN( Attachment 3 WETLAND EDGE , I~OHLMAN Attachment 4 EXISTING ~,PLEWOOD IMPORTS BUILDING i SITE PLAN 12 (~ASSOCIATES LTD) Nov~mbea' 6, 1996 Attachment 5' ClVIL I=NGINEERING · URBAN PLANNING · ?RANSPORTATION · I=NVIRONMENTAL LAND$CAM= ARCHITECTURE · CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT · LAND SURVEY NARRATIVE STATEMENT FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION Maplewood Imports 2780 Maplewood Drive The property under the current ownership of LeJeunc Investment, Inc. totaling 8.31 ac~s is a oombination of M-I zoning and P, mictmtial zoning districts. Thc dmlcrshipl~ been ~ for 27 years and owned by Lel~une Inv~m~n~ for ~kree y~zs who have ~ close c~mummlcaticm ~ ~ adjacent property owners and residential propertics. Maplewood Lmports is proposins an expansion to their facililies to obtain a n~v M~l~s 1~ of whicles. T~ proposed ~ ~m.sion is bein~ held to the minimum number of ~ to adequately support g~e existing and proposed showrooms. The site location and reques~ to expand g~e buildi~ and parkin~ 1o~ will require a CoMiticmal Use Permi~ and a Variance tcqucs~ is thc most reasonable solutio~ for par~-~ lot expansion. The si~ falls within the Kholman lake shorcland ordinance whicb requircs a maximum impervious development of S0% if drainage is prc~rcated. Along the castcrn sidc of the site is a wetland basin idcntifi~asaMaplcwoodclass2. Tbceastemwctlandhastveo~. Tbc nmin body of the wctland and an appendage (fingcr)flint extends west toward Maplcwood ~m. Thc tin.ocr appcars ~ drainage m ~his area and over iime w~land c]mrac~h~cs appeamt. This ~ ac~ as a cleaning bufl~ for ~ main w~tand body. A we*_ ~.,~ evaluaIim of~his ~%o~r indica~ i~ bas ~cs of a have multiple classificagom ~ ~me v~iland edge. The ~pausion mques~ of Maplewood Imports to pu~ ~ property io a r~aso~ble use bas _~___~pied W b,l,,,~ ~ factors of overall impervious site south. (612) 933-0972 · 6110 Blue Circle Drive * Suite I00 · Mirmeto~ka, MN 55343 · FAX (612) 933-1153 13 Throughout the site design process altemagw d~signs wcrc review which include, filling a pan of thc wctl~d appcndag¢ or reconfi~ thc parking lot to avoid cacroachme~ into the buffer yard. To rewnfigure the par~,,~ lot would require devdopin~ the parking lot W the south. (see exhibit B) This par~-_~ ~ot oonnSur~ would ~.?aa ~ sout~y ne~h~, by mov~ the pad~ ~ot up to ~00' mowing different areas of their property per the neighbors requests. A southerly expansion would impact exjstln~ trees that currcntly screen the dealership for some of thc nciffhbors. Maplcwood lm?orts has been proactiv~ in keep/rig good relations with the nei~bors and feels that a~_ ~-~ a parking lot closer to the resident homes is not n viable option. It is believed that the proposed location for the par~-~ will create less o£a mvirctm~tai and social impact, being inthe buffer, than removing the stand of trees with thc southerly expansion. The southerly par~-g option also would require a zc~_.o change as part of'the expansion would be in a resideatial zone. Under cturent Wetland Comerv~oo Act regulatiom ~ni~ of up to 2000 square feet of'wetlands is permissible. If the appendage was filled the rpl,lmum buffer setback could be met. Fill~ a w,~land ~o meet the mininlum buffer setback r~quimnmt is not a desirable or attractiv~ altemalive. By controlling the drainage with curb and gutter and sump catch basins existing erosion will be rcduced. Small rains and initial water from larger storms will i.6ttrate thc water table through the rock U~nches. The northerly catch basins will contwl drainage from the existln~a uncontrolled parki%a arm and reduce the amoum of erosion to the wetland. The southerly catch basin will control drainage from arcas that are currently paved and unpaved. The overflow drainas¢ will discharge flh'mgh the wctla~d appendage before reaching the main wetland. Ali of the proposed new paving is being directed to the southerly catch basin and the wetland finger. All disturbed ground including thc ~:1 slope will be seeded with a watershed approved native seed mix that will enhance and impwve the buffer in those areas. These proposed changes should impwvc the wa~ q..1Ry W the wetland 6n~acr and ultima~ly W thc main wetland body. As an existl-i business wi~_ in Maplewood, Maplcwood Imports has the opportunity to obtnln a new Mcrcedes line of vehicles. Thc ownership, devel~ team, City staff and watersl~ have worked diligently on producin~ a plan which is sensitive to the wctlands and balances neishbor concerns. The plan currant distance between a commcmial usc and residential property. The ownership of Maplewood Imports request approval of the Planning Ccs3m~ion and City Council of this buifcr yard variance as thc best 14 ~ 6, 1996 - 2 - NARRATIVE F Attachment N01 '16'O0'W _ ~. 335.04' / " 15 Attachment 7 ft~ ~76.00 .-. 14 A pprox irm o,.'J e Dx.i.,. Zo~n~ \iAC ~o--II-fl 6 16 EXHIbiT' B I;llO I(lu(' (lircl,' itn~etonk~, Fax: (*%1''~) 9:1:1--11:~ Attachment 8 S~tanber 24, 1996 NARRATIVE STATEMENT FOR CONDmONAL USE APPLICATION M~plewood Imports The p~ ownM by LeJ~un= ~ currmt]y b m auto ckala~p 'Map]~vood ~' additimis zm~l M-I Light Mamdactming. M-I bti~oorn=t~~t~~. All Map~ Coc~ Sec. 36-187(b) statos, "No building or exterior use, ~xc~pt par~, may be elected, altered or ocaxluc~! within ~ ~ ~ (350) ~ o£a ~ ~ ~t a Conditim~ Use P~mit#.. It is ~imated that the residmtial zoning line is approximately 80 feet south ofth~ somim-lypropertyl~. This loca~th~dsling building 295 f~t fromtl~ zming line and the proposed building will be approximately 145 feet from said residential zonin~ line. The proposed addition meets the fiv~ criteria as stated in the Cmditional Use Application. Furthem~, ~ ~ ~ b~ is lc~zted over 350 f~t from the proposed buildin~ expansion. 17 Attachment 9 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc, applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property at 2780 North Highway 61. The legal description is: Lots 97, 98 and 99 of GARDENA ADDITIONAL OF RAMSEY COUNTY, Minnesota together with the west 1/2 of vacated English Street lying between the Easterly extension of the North line of said Lot 97 and Easterly extension of the South line of said Lot 99. The North 114 feet of Lots 16 and 17, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The Northerly 300 feet of Lot 14 and all of Lot 15, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. At that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the South east 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, which lies East of the Easterly right of way of Trunk Highway No. 61, and North of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point distant 531.75 feet West and 122 feet South of the Northeast corner of the above-described fraction of Section 4, thence running Nothwesterly at a range of approximately 66 degrees, 28 minutes, from said, point 107 feet, more or less to a point on the Easterly right of way line of said Highway No. 61, which said point is 90 feet Southwesterly from the point of intersection of said Easterly right of way line with the North line of said quarter-quarter-quarter section line except that part platted as KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION. The North one-half of Lot Twelve (12) of KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota together with that part of vacated English Street lying within the SE 1/4 of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22 and lying between the Easterly extension of the North line of Lot 12, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, and the Easterly extension of the South line of the North 1/2 of Lot 12, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION. The North 300 feet of Lot Thirteen (13) of KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The North Half (N 1/2) of Lot Eighteen (18), KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, together with an easement for ingress and egress over the West 10 feet of the South Half of Lot Eighteen (18), KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The North 335.00 feet of Lots 73 and 74, GARDENA ADDITION to Ramsey County, Minnesota; and the East 40 feet of English Street, vacated, lying between the Westerly extensions across said street of the North line of Lot 74 and the South line of the North 335.00 feet of Lot 74, all in GARDENA ADDITION to Ramsey County, Minnesota, WHEREAS, Section 36-196(h)(3) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a wetland buffer with an average width of 100 feet and a minimum width of 50 feet. 3.8 WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a buffer with a minimum width of zero feet. The average proposed buffer width would be 72 feet wide. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 50 feet from the minimum buffer width requirement and 28 feet from the average buffer width requirement. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On November 18, 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The city council held a public hearing on ,1996. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The hardship is caused by an old excavation on the site which evolved into a Iow-quality wetland. Due to its connection to a large, higher-quality wetland, the property owner would be required, by code, to provide a 50-foot setback. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would improve the quality of the wetland buffer by the pre-treatment of storm runoff prior to its discharge into the wetland. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Submitting a grading and landscaping plan subject to the requirements of the city staff and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for the wetland buffer. 2. Dedicating a wetland-buffer easement. This easement shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cuffing, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record the deed for this easement before the city will issue a building permit. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996. 3.9 Attachment l0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company applied for a conditional use permit to add onto an auto dealership building. The addition would be within 350 feet of a residential lot line. WHEREAS, this permit applies to Maplewood Imports at 2780 North Highway 61. The legal description is: Lots 97, 98 and 99 of GARDENA ADDITIONAL OF RAMSEY COUNTY, Minnesota together with the west 1/2 of vacated English Street lying between the Easterly extension of the North line of said Lot 97 and Easterly extension of the South line of said Lot 99. The North 114 feet of Lots 16 and 17, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The Northerly 300 feet of Lot 14 and all of Lot 15, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. At that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the South east 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, which lies East of the Easterly right of way of Trunk Highway No.. 61, and North of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point distant 531.75 feet West and 122 feet South of the Northeast corner of the above-described fraction of Section 4, thence running Nothwesterly at a range of approximately 66 degrees, 28 minutes, from said point 107 feet, more or less to a point on the Easterly right of way line of said Highway No. 61, which said point is 90 feet Southwesterly from the point of intersection of said Easterly right of way line with the North line of said quarter-quarter-quarter section line except that part platted as KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION. The North one-half of Lot Twelve (12) of KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota together with that part of vacated English Street lying within the SE 1/4 of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22 and lying between the Easterly extension of the North line of Lot 12, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, and the Easterly extension of the South line of the North 1/2 of Lot 12, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION. The North 300 feet of Lot Thirteen (13) of KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The North Half (N 1/2) of Lot Eighteen (18), KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, together with an easement for ingress and egress over the West 10 feet of the South Half of Lot Eighteen (18), KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The North 335.00 feet of Lots 73 and 74, GARDENA ADDITION to Ramsey County, Minnesota; and the East 40 feet of English Street, vacated, lying between the Westerly extensions across said street of the North line of Lot 74 and the South line of the North 335.00 feet of Lot 74, all in GARDENA ADDITION to Ramsey County, Minnesota. 20 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On November 18, 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve 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 plannedcharacter of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 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. 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. 10.There would not be a significant affect on the development of the parcel as zoned. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 23. 3. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Commercial Property Study November 13, 1996 INTRODUCTION On August 12, 1996 the city council directed staff to proceed with the actions outlined in summary format in the August 5, 1996 staff report on the Commercial Property Study. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between commercial and residential zones and the possible methods to control the intensity of uses of commercial properties. Of the ten actions proposed by staff and the planning commission, seven suggest amending particular ordinances relating to parking, landscaping, zoning and the amortization of nonconforming commercial uses in residential areas. One recommendation prompts the city to adopt the city of Chanhassen's landscaping standards on a trial basis for one year. Another recommendation suggests that the planning commission study the intensity of commercial development to define what intensity means, whether the city needs to control intensity and, if so, ways that the city can control the intensity of commercial development. One final recommendation about lifting a moratorium on new or expanding clinics has already been accomplished. At this time, city staff addresses the first six recommendations for action. These recommendations do not require any further research or investigation by staff.' The four recommendations that are not considered for action in this report are, according to the recommendation numbers in the summary staff report dated August 5, 1996, (7) parking set- asides, (8) the BC(M) intent statement, (9) the amortization of nonconforming commercial uses in residential districts, and (10) further study of commercial development intensity by the planning commission. City staff will continue to work on Recommendations 7-10 as our time allows. DISCUSSION 1. "Initiate an ordinance that changes Subsection 36-27(a) of the city code to require trees and shrubs in addition to grass, but allow the CDRB to waive the requirement where the adjacent owners object." This section requires a landscaped yard of not less than twenty feet in width. Since the planning commission felt that landscaping could mean just grass, they recommended that the council change this subsection to require trees or shrubs besides grass. The Community Design Review Board (CDRB) was concerned that this would limit flexibility, especially when neighbors do not want or need screening. Staff recommends a compromise whereby staff would add screening as a purpose for the 20-foot-wide area, with the provision that the CDRB may waive the requirement if needed. Refer to the resolution on beginning on page 6. is because a nonconforming use may not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Maplewood requires a conditional use permit (CUP) to expand a nonconforming use. If natural causes destroy a nonconforming building, the owner has one year to reconstruct it or he must rebuild on the site following the current rules. If the owner abandons or does not use a nonconforming building for one year, then the building or use must conform to the current ordinance and standards. Before the city takes action on this recommendation, staff needs to first gain an accurate assessment of the number of such nonconforming uses in the city and gain an understanding of the legal implications of creating an amortization provision. To accomplish this, staff will consult with the city attomey about the legal aspects of such an action, survey surrounding cities to seek out and examine comparable ordinances and possibly request guidance from the League of Minnesota Cities. 10. "Direct the planning commission to study the intensity of commercial development." The study should define what intensity of commercial development means and decide whether the city needs to control the intensity of commercial development. If the commission decides that the city needs to control intensity, it should recommend ways to do it. The commission could consider regulation of maximum lot coverage and floor area to lot area ratios. COMMISSION ACTION On November 12, 1996, the community design review board (CDRB) recommended approval of the proposed design-related code changes (Recommendation A). RECOMMENDATIONS Bo Do Approve the resolution on beginning on page 6. This resolution revises Subsection 36-27(a), Subsection 36-27(d) and Article (6) of Subsection 36-28(c) of the city code about design standards. Approve the resolution beginning on page 8. This resolution revises Division 7 of Article II of Chapter 36 of the city's code of ordinances, Subsection 36-151 about the business commercial (BC) zoning district. Approve the resolution beginning on page 12. This resolution revises Division 9 of Article II of Chapter 36 of the city's code of ordinances, Subsection 36-186 about the light manufacturing (M-l) zoning district. Approve the resolution on page 14. This resolution revises ArtiCle V, Section 36-437 of the city's code of ordinances about conditional use permits (CUP) and adds Helistops t° the list of definitions in Section 36-6. P:~...~liscell\comstudy.mem Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Recommendations 2. Landscaping and Screening Resolution 3. Business Commercial Zoning Code Resolution 4. Light Manufacturing Zoning Code Resolution 5. Conditional Use Permit Code Resolution 4 " Attachment 1 PROPOSED CHANGES IN COMMERCIAL USES BY ZONING DISTRICT CUP = a use that should have a conditional use permit (CUP) if within 350 feet of a property that the City is planning for residential use 350 feet: a use that should be at least 250 feet away from a property that the City is planning for residential use BC (Business Commercial) Permitted Uses: On-sale liquor that is not part of a restaurant--350 feet Craftsman's shop-CUP Motor vehicle sales (new o~y or new and used)--350 feet CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG Cliquid petroleum gas) dispensing facilities (limited capacity)--350 feet Add check cashing businesses--350 feet Conditional Uses: Sale of used cars--350 feet Omit heliport (see below) Major motor fuel station, vehicle wash or maintenance garages--350 feet M-1 (Ught Manufacturing) Permitted Uses: Contractors' shops--350 feet Manufacturing, assembly, or processing of products--350 feet Conditional use: Mining or material recycling--350 feet Other Changes Gun shops (or sales)--prohibit anywhere in the City Add helistop as an accessory use to a hospital, if it is not within 350 feet of a residential district. Define helistop as a place for one helicopter to land or takeoff, but does not include maintenance or fueling operations. 5 Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, REVISING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER :36 OF THE CITY CODE ABOUT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section changes the following part of the Maplewood City Code (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-27. Landscaping and screening. (a) A landscaped and possible screened area ef not less than twenty (20) feet in width shall be provided where: (1) A nonresidential use abuts a residentially-zoned property. (2) A multiple dwelling abuts a property zoned for single or double dwellings. The community desi,qn review board (CDRB) may require shrubs or trees in this area where they deem it appropriate or necessary. [(b) and (c) remain unchanged.] (d) Screening may be satisfied with a screening fence. A screening fence shall be attractive, compatible with the principal building and surrounding land uses, at least six (6) feet in height, and provide a minimum opaqueness of eighty (80) percent. The city may require landscaDin~ includin.q trees and shrubs with any screenin,q fence. Section 2. This section changes the following part of the Maplewood City Code (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-28. Additional design standards. [(a) and (b) remain unchanged.] (c) The developer of any project, other than single or double dwellings, shall do the following: [(1) through (5) remain unchanged.] (6) Construct all buildings, except single- and two-family homes, with the following minimum setbacks: a. Thirty (30) feet from a street right-of-way. bo Fifty (50) feet from a residential lot line. This setback shall be increased up to ==vt:'.'; five~.'-/~v/one hundred (100) feet based on the more restrictive of the following requirements: 1. Building height: The building setbacks shall be increased two (2) feet for each one (1) foot the building exceeds twenty-five (25) feet in height. 2. Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces a residentially-zoned property, the wall setback shall be increased five (5) feet for each one thousand (1,000) square feet, or part thereof, in excess of two thousand (2,000) square feet. [(7) through (14) remain unchanged.] Section 3. The ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,1996. Attachment 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, REVISING DIVISION 7 OF ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 36 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES, SUBSECTION 36-1.51 ABOUT THE BUSINESS COMMERCIAL (BC) ZONING DISTRICT. The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section changes the Maplewood City Code as follows (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-151. Uses. (a) Permitted Uses: The city shall only permit the following uses by right: (1) A dwelling unit for one family in combination with a business use. (2) Hotel, motel or tourist cabins. (3) Retail or commercial rental activities, rc='.=u r:n'., ""v,, v.,.-"'" ,,.~.v,'; ..... r.,__.,,,.; .... ,..~ ~---J--.~*' ,~.;...., ~..... ~ office, clinic, studio, bank, personal service, day care center,..,.,...,,,-,,"-"" .... ,~. -.,-~.'r' .... .., mortuary, restaurant or on-sale liquor business (subiect to license). All on sale liquor business not associated with a restaurant shall be at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property that the city is plannin,q for residential use. All business, storage or display, except signs and parking, shall be in a closed building. (4) For motor vehicles, the followin,q activities if not within three hundred fifty (350) feet of any property that the city is planninR for residential use: a_. The sale or leasin,q of new motor vehicles. b_. The sale or leasing of new and used motor vehicles when all such activities are on the same property. c_. The rental of motor vehicles as an accessory use to the sale or leasin,q of new motor vehicles. (5) Publishing, photocopying or pdnting establishment. (6) Indoor theater. (7) Laundry. (8) Bakery or candy shop, which produces goods for on-premises retail sale. (9) Parking lot as a principal use. (10) Motor vehicle accessory installation center. (11) CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG (liquid petroleum gas) dispensing facilities. Tanks shall not exceed a water capacity of one thousand five hundred (1,500) gallons for those dispensing facilities whose pdmary purpose is to produce power and light for nonvehicle uses, such as at 3M, NSP's facility on Century Avenue, or for temporary use on construction sites. (Refer to the licensing requirements in Chapter 17.3.) (12) CNG (compressed natural Ras) or LPG (liquid petroleum gas) retail dispensin,q facilities-limited capacity. Tanks shall not exceed a water capacity of one thousand (1,000) gallons for dispensina facilities as an accessory use to a motor fuel station or convenience store, the primary purpose for which is the fillin,q of LPG tanks for recreational vehicles, portable heaters and ,qas grills. These limited capacity dispensin.q facilities shall be at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property the city is planninR for residential use. (13) Check cashinR business, if at least three hundred fifty feet (350) from any property the city is planninR for residential use. ~ .... ;-~'~ "'~"~';" ""'"";';"~ such "~ (14) Repair shop, except motor fuel stations or maintenance .qara.qes. All business, storage or display, except siclns and parkina, shall be in a closed buildin,q, itiRera~ ......... , ---J .................. u .-~ .................. v .... ~'"C~C VI. (15) Or,qanized athletic activities, such as dance, physical fitness or karate, that are conducted indoors Any .... (16) Itinerant carnivals, subject to the licensinA requirements in Chapter 6, Article VI. (17) Any use that would be similar to any of the above uses, if it is not noxious or hazardous. (b) Conditional Uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit: (1) All permitted uses in the R-3 district. (2) Processing and distributing station for beverages. (3) Place of amusement, recreation or assembly, other than an indoor theater, indoor athletic activity or itinerant carnival. (4) The extedor storage, display, sale or distribution of goods or materials, but not including a junkyard, salvage automobile, or other wrecking yard. The city may require screening of such uses pursuant to the screening requirements of Clause 6(a). (5) For motor vehicles, the followin,q activitieS if not within three hundred fifty (350) feet of any property that the city is plannin,q for residential use: ' 9 a..=. The sale or leasing of used motor vehicles. b..~. The storage or rental of motor vehicles. (6) Metal storage buildings, if the building meets the findings for a conditional use permit and the findings below: a. No more than twenty (20) percent of the building would be visible from streets or the highest topographical point of the nearest residential lot lines. b. The building would not be of lesser quality than the surrounding development. If the screening is removed or dies and the owner does not replace it, the city council may require that the owner remove the building. If the value of the building exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), the city council shall allow a five-year amortization period. (7) Craftsman Shop. (8) Reserved. (9) Motor fuel stations, motor vehicle wash or maintenance garages, if they meet the findings for a conditional use permit and the findings below: a. The setback of any overhead canopy shall be at least fifteen (15) feet from the street fight-of-way line and five (5) feet from a nonresidential property line. b. The setbacks to a residential lot line in Section 36-28(c)(6) shall include motor vehicle washes, fuel dispensers or canopies. c. All parts of major motor fuel stations, motor vehicle washes or maintenance garages shall be at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property the city is planning for residential use. = '~"~'~"*~"~ "'* ';"= d. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises for more than forty-eight (48) hours, except in storage areas that are fully screened from public view. e. All trash, waste materials and obsolete parts shall be stored within an enclosed trash container. f. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance shall occur within an enclosed building, except minor maintenance. Minor maintenance shall include work such as tire replacement or inflation, adding oil or wiper fluid replacement. g. The city must approve the location and type of outdoor storage in the conditional use permit. h. No parking space(s) shall be within the line of vision between self-service fuel dispensers and the attendant's window. ]0 i. Noise from operations, including external speakers, shall not exceed the noise standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. j. No motor fuel station or maintenance garage within three hundred fifty (350) feet of a residential lot line shall be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. k. Fuel station dispenser islands, parking areas, and drives shall be screened from residential lot lines in conformance with Section 36-27(c) and Section 36-27(d). I. Parking shall be limited to paved areas. m. All new or replacement underground fuel storage tanks shall meet the standards of Minnesota Statutes and the standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Such tanks shall also have a UL listing appropriate for their use. In addition, installation plans shall be submitted to the State Fire Marshal's office for approval. n. There shall be leak detection equipment on all new and existing tanks according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) schedule deadlines. Leak detection facilities shall include electronic (in tank) monitoring equipment as well as manual daily measurement and recording of tank levels. Records of daily tank levels, fuel purchases and fuel sales shall always be available on site for inspection* by the fire marshal. o. Vents from an underground fuel storage tank(s) shall be two hundred (200) feet" from a residential lot line. The city council may approve a lesser setback if the developer can prove that the topography or existing or proposed buildings will prevent fumes from reaching a residential lot line. p. Motor vehicle washes shall be subject to the same conditions as stated for motor vehicle fuel stations, with the following additional conditions: 1. Water from a motor vehicle wash shall not drain onto a public street or access. A drainage system shall be installed, subject to the approval of the city engineer. 2. There shall be stacking space for at least four (4) vehicles. (10) Privately-owned imining or material recycling facility. The processing of recyclable materials shall be in an enclosed building and be at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any Dro~3erty the city is plannin~l for residential use. (11) Any use that would be similar to any of the above uses, if it is not noxious or hazardous. (12) Any building or outside use, except parking, that is within seventy-five (75) feet of a residential building. Section 2. The ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,1996. Attachment 4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, REVISING DIVISION 9 OF ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 36 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES ABOUT THE LIGHT MANUFACTURING (M-l) ZONING DISTRICT. The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section i. This section adds the following to the Maplewood City Code (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-186. Permiffied Uses. The city shall permit the following uses by right: (1) Any use listed as a permitted use in a BC_(Business and Commercial). District. (2) Wholesale business establishments. (3) Custom shop for making articles or products sold on the premises. (4) Plumbing, heating, air conditioning, glazing, painting, paper handling, roofing, ventilating and electrical contractors, blacksmith shop, carpentry, soldering or welding shop. AI._Jl such establishments, shops or businesses shall be located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property that the city is plannin,q for residential use. (5) Bottling establishment. (6) Manufacturing, assembly or processing of the following, if it is at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property the city is plannin,q for residential use: a. Canvas and canvas products. b. Clothing and other textile products. c. Electrical equipment, appliances and supplies, except heavy electrical machinery. d. Food products, except meat, poultry or fish. e. Jewelry, clocks or watches. f. Leather products. g. Medical, dental, drafting equipment, optical goods. h. Musical instruments. i. Perfumes or pharmaceutical products, rubber products and synthetic treated fabrics. j. Small products from the following previously prepared materials: cork, feathers, felt, fur, glass, hair, horn, paper, plastics or shells. (7) Carpet and rug cleaning. (8) (9) (10) (11) Dyeing plant. Laboratory, research, experimental or testing. School. Warehouse. (12) Accessory use on the same lot with and customarily incidental to any of the above permitted uses. (13) Adult Use Principal, Sexually-Oriented Businesses and Adult-Use Accessory subject to the requirements in Chapter 17. Section 2. This section changes the Maplewood City Code as follows (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-187. Conditional Uses. (a) The following uses must have a conditional use permit: (1) Any conditional use in the BC (Business Commercial) district, subject to the same conditions. (2) Any use of the same character as a permitted use in Section 36-186. (3) Trucking yard or terminal. (4) Privately-owned minin,q or material recycling facilities, f=c!l!ty if at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property the city is I~lannin~ for residential use. (b) No building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered or conducted within three hundred fifty (350) feet of a residential district without a conditional use permit. Section 3. The ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,1996. ]3 Attachment 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, REVISING THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES ABOUT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section adds the following definition to the Maplewood City Code (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-6. Definitions. Helistop. A place for one helicopter to land or take off, but does not include fuelin.q or maintenance operations or facilities. Section 2. This section changes the Maplewood City Code as follows (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-437. Conditional uses. The city may issue conditional use permits for the following uses in any zoning district from which they are not permitted and not specifically prohibited: (1) Public utility, public service or public building uses, (2) Mining. (Refer to the requirements under Article IV of this chapter.) (3) Library, community center, state licensed day care or residential program (unless exempted by state law), church, hospital and a helistop as an accessory use to a hospital, any institution of any educational, philanthropic or charitable nature, cemetery, crematory or mausoleum_, cr :ny (4) An off-street parking lot as a principal use in a commercial or industrial zoning district. (5) Part of an apartment building for commercial use, intended for the building's residents, such as drugstore, beauty parlor, barbershop, medical office or similar use. (6) Planned unit developments (PUD). (7) Construction o..~.n ef an outlot. Section 3. The ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,1996. ]4