Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/1996MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 17, 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. June 3, 1996 4. Approval of Agenda New Business a. Kennard Street Vacation (between Cope and Lark Avenues) b. Wetland Setback Variance - General Sprinkler Corporation (County Road D) 6. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. June 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Ericson b. June 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach 8. Staff Presentations 9. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: o o The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA JUNE 3, 1996 Only five members of the Maplewood Planning Commission were present at the scheduled 7 p.m. meeting time. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, contacted Commissioner Brueggeman. Ms. Brueggeman had not been feeling well but offered to attend the meeting to make the required quorum. While awaiting Ms. Brueggeman's arriVal, the commission moved ahead on the agenda to discuss items which did not require a vote. VII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. June 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Ericson will attend this meeting. Commissioner Axdahl asked if the commissioners received information from the Metropolitan Council about the focus group meetings that will be held June 11, 12, and 13, 1996. Mr. Axdahl said the topic of these meetings will be how you think the metropolitan area should be developing. Planning commission members are invited to the June 11 meeting; the general public is invited on the 12th and 13th. The commission discussed the proposed 1997-2001 Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Rossbach questioned the best way to discuss opposition to parts of the plan. He specifically had problems with the planned improvements at Harvest Park and Hazelwood Park. Mr. Rossbach encouraged the commission to give thought to these two projects and, ~,'hen the ClP comes before the commission, possibly set those items aside from the approval of the ent~e plan. VIII. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. Commissioner Brueggeman arrived at 7:16 p.m. I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7:16 II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lester Axdahl Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman CommIssioner Barbara Ericson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Jack Frost Kevin Kittridge Dave Kopesky Gary Pearson William Rossbach Milo Thompson Present Present Present Present Present Absent Absent Absent Present Absent Planning Commission Minutes of 06-03-96 -2- III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 21, 1996 Commissioner Frost moved approval of the minutes of May 21, 1996, as submitted. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Brueggeman seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. V. NEW BUSINESS A. MDG Office/Warehouse Building Conditional Use Permit--Cope Avenue Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Ericson was concerned about the speed limit for trucks on Cope Avenue. Ken Haider, city engineer, said the speed for all traffic on Cope Avenue is 30 mph and separate speed limits cannot be set for trucks and cars. Commissioner Axdahl asked about sound level restrictions. Mr. Roberts suggested that the tenants be required to keep the shop-area doors closed. Gary May, MDG Properties, was present. Mr. May said there will be two tenants. The northern two-thirds of the building will be a warehouse where garments are recycled (collected, processed, packaged, and shipped), and the southern one-third will be an architectural sheet-metal manufacturing facility. He said this would be a good use for the property because the occupant density is Iow, it is wholesale and not retail, the hours of operation are strictly work hours, and the trucks would primarily be "cube" vans with only occasional semi-trucks. Commissioner Rossbach noted that there were close to 100 parking spots and only 40 employees. Mr. May was agreeable to a reduction in the required number of parking stalls. Greg Mack, Ramsey County Parks, commented on the aesthetics of greenery instead of a retaining wall facing the paved pedestrian trail. Mr. Mack also asked to have the sight distance where the trail crosses the building grade addressed. His concern was that southbound pedestrians on the trail would be able to see the traffic on Cope Avenue. Mr. May said the retaining walls were 7- feet-high in the northern section, near Highway 36, where the elevation of the pedestrian trail is much higher. He said the parking lOt is about one foot above the street level, for drainage, at Cope Avenue. Ken Roberts said if the city council wants to reduce the required parking area, it should probably take a formal action to approve a parking reduction authorization. This should be a separate action. Mr. Roberts also referred to the Community Design Review Condition B. 2. f. which calls for a revised site plan. He suggested that the planning commission might want to coordinate with that condition and require some kind of staff approval before the building permit is issued. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-03-96 -3- Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend: Ao Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for a building in an M-1 (light manufacturing) district to be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. The city bases the approval on the findings required by code and is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The developer shall revise the site plan to have up to 30 fewer parking spaces on the site, primarily on the west side of the building, if the council approves the parking reduction authorization. The revised site and parking plan shall be subject to city staff approval. The director of community development may approve other minor changes. The city shall only require enough parking with the building for the needs of the tenants. This parking reduction is to lessen the amount of impervious surface area and to increase the amount of green space on the site. The city council may require additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of any materials or equipment without approval of a revised conditional use permit by the city council. B. City council grant a parking reduction authorization of up to 30 parking spaces to lessen the amount of impervious surface and to increase the amount of green space on the site. Commissioner Ericson seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. B. Gooddch Golf Dome Conditional Use PermitmRipley Avenue and Van Dyke Street Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. A revised landscape plan with some additional information, received June 3, 1996, was given to the commissionere. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commission. Commissioner Axdahl commented about a statement in the staff report that the council denied the previous request for this golf dome based on findings in the city code. He asked what changes had been made in the city code that would affect this project. Mr. Roberts said the city attorney thought there was enough subjectivity in the findings for approval, or denial, for the city to now approve the requested dome. Commissioner Fischer asked staff to comment on the recommendation for a 30-foot setback requirement (contained in the new information distributed at the meeting regarding Recommendation B. 5.). The conditions, as appreved by the Community Design Review Board, recommend a 30-foot setback, as code requires. As shown on the plans, the building would have a 28 (+)- foot setback from the Ripley Avenue right-of-way. Gregory Mack, director of the Planning Commission Minutes of 06-03-96 Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department, is now requesting a 20-foot-setback from the Ripley Avenue right-of-way. This would leave some separation between the dome and the south edge of the existing parking lot. Mr. Roberts said the city did not see any problem with this request. He added that attention will be given to the Community Design Review Board conditions to satisfy both the city and the Ramsey County parks department. Kevin Finley, of the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department, was present and offered to answer questions. Fred Paul of Midwest Domes, the contractor and manager of the proposed dome, also was at the meeting. Commissioner Frost asked if this dome would be similar to the one in Cottage Grove. Mr. Finley said this dome is like the one in Cottage Grove that has come down twice in the last three to four years. Mr. Paul said the manufacturer is now using a new cable system to support the dome during times of high wind shear. Nancy Peterson, 1990 Ripley Avenue (across from Goodrich Park), spoke about a possible plan by Ramsey County to use Goodrich Park as an outdoor driving range. She felt this was not an appropriate use for that area and said the neighborhood needed a typical park there. There also would be a need by Maplewood to relocate the ballfields, presently at Goodrich, with a substantial cost to the taxpayers. Ms. Peterson's concern was to look at this as more than a golf dome---it is an opportunity to provide Maplewood with seven large parks. Ms. Peterson also asked if it was necessary to have the dome 65 feet tall with two levels. Mr. Finely said the height was required. Carolyn Peterson, 1999 Jackson Street, recommended building the golf dome at Ripley and VanDyke. Greg Mack, the Ramsey County Parks director, said there has been discussion with the Maplewood City Council and the Ramsey County board about conveyance of 7 properties, now owned by Ramsey County, to Maplewood, subject to the county receiving a conditional use permit and building permit for this golf dome. These parcels comprise 144 acres of land, most of which the city has had under long-term lease. Mr. Mack said there would be a restriction in the conveyance that all lands being transferred to Maplewood are to remain as either park or open space. Commissioner Frost asked Mr. Mack for an update on the north and south extensions of the pedestrian/bike trail that runs from Frost Avenue to Beam Avenue. Commissioner Fischer spoke about a bush that interferes with sight distance on the trail south of County Road B at the intersection of 6th Street. This was determined to be on the Department of Natural Resources Gateway trail. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend: Ao Approve the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for a public indoor golf dome on the northwest corner of Van Dyke Street and Ripley Avenue. The council bases the permit on the findings required by code and it is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The county or the contractor must have started the proposed construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-03-96 -5- If the city council determines there is not enough on-site parking, the council may require that the property owner or operator provide additional parking. 4. The city counciJ shall review this permit in one year. Approve a setback variance from 30 feet to 20 feet off Ripley Street for the dome. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Rossbach, Frost, Brueggeman, Ericson Nays-Fischer The motion passed. C. Saint Paul Water Utility Conditional Use Permit--1900 Rice Street Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commission. Brad Eilts, Saint Paul Water Utility, said the new dewatering equipment will capture 100 percent of the solids. During the second phase of this project, they plan to work with the City of Maplewood to find the best use for the sludge field. Commissioner Rossbach asked about the solids dewatedng process. Carolyn Peterson, 1999 Jackson Street, was concerned about the noise levels from the filter presses. Ms. Peterson was assured that this process would be much quieter and would occur within an enclosed building. She said that neighbors were concerned about the large sludge pond that is now being filled with approximately four feet of fill. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: Approval of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit to expand the Saint Paul Water Utility's solids dewatering facility at 1900 Rice Street North~. The city bases this permit on the findings required by the code 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. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Fischer seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. VI. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-03-96 -6- Commissioner Frost asked if the city council intended to fill the vacancy on the planning commission. Mr. Roberts said the council determined to keep the planning commission at ten members for now. Commissioner Rossbach said that possibly some of his comments about the Heather Ridge project, at the last commission meeting, may have been construed as criticism of Maplewood's planning department staff. Mr. Rossbach said this was not his intention. He wanted to make everyone aware that he was appreciative of the planning staff and its abilities. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Street Vacation Kennard Street, between Lark and Cope Avenues June 11, 1996 INTRODUCTION Dr. Kevin Denis, representing Lakes Orthodontic Associates, Inc., is proposing to vacate the unused Kennard Street right-of-way between Lark and Cope Avenues. This vacation would allow Dr. Denis to combine the east one-half of the right-of-way with the adjacent property to the east. Dr. Denis wants to buy this property to build an orthodontic office building and parking lot. (See the maps on pages 4 and 5 and the letter on page 6.) BACKGROUND On February 15, 1972, the city council ordered a feasibility study for the construction of Kennard Street, between Lark and Cope Avenues. On May 3, 1973, the city council found the Kennard Street project feasible and set a heating for June 7, 1973. On June 7, 1973, the council did not order the Kennard Street improvement project. On October 2, 1980, the council denied a request to vacate Lark Avenue west of Kennard Street and to vacate Kennard Street between Lark and Cope Avenues. The council denied this request because the applicant did not show the vacations to be in the public interest and because the city might have needed the streets for the park or for future development. Specifically, the city found the proposed street vacations to be premature because of uncertainty of the city buying the land for Sherwood Park. On March 15, 1981, the city council approved the Maple Park Shores preliminary plat. On April 1, 1982, the city council approved the Maple Park Shores final plat. DISCUSSION Maplewood has no plans to build Kennard Street between Lark and Cope Avenues. City staff expects there would be much opposition from the neighbors if the city wanted to build this street. There are utilities (sanitary sewer, water and electric) in this right-of-way that serve the area. The city should keep a drainage and utility easement over the right-of-way to protect these utilities. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page 7. This resolution vacates the Kennard Street right-of-way between Lark and Cope Avenues. The city should vacate this street right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage and utility easement over the entire right- of-way. REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Area: 15,505 square feet (0.36 acres) Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Credit Unions across Cope Avenue Vacant property on Cope Avenue and houses on Lark Avenue Improved Kennard Street Maple Park Shores townhouses p:secl0/kennard.vac Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Property Line Map 4. 5-31-96 letter from Kevin Denis 5. Street Vacation Resolution Attachment 1 AVE. ~ KOHLMAN ~O~D 1~ c AVE. COPE ~ ELDR BELMONT GER~ ~.~ S VIKINC SHERREN A'~. AVE. DEMONT AVE. Z ad Lake ED~EHiLL RD. GERVAIS CT. COPE AVE. G'~'' ~ RD. 0~ AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE.. N. P.A~SEY COUNTY NURSING HOME AND FAIR GROUNDS ~.~.~1 ~ooo~.~.~o~ ~.~~°?°w't- , ~,.~ 4~ ~ Attachment 2 ii~. ', I V i f\lll g ~,l!~.l'.lphi ¥ HIGHWAY 36 ........ ~. T I ....... ~ ~ .,~ .... ~.~ .m '.~ ~ % J ~ CREDIT UNION j- 0 · ItlIIIIItH F~i/ I'~ COPE AVENUEiI~II PON D , )RES ! TOWNHO_USES 5 _ ~iiI~llllaIll LARK AVENUE - SHERWOOD -1, ~ ' 102 LAURIE ROAD ,,' - ,, -'J ,oo'rl '0' I :.~,_ :, :. ,'t I, ..... ., ,,,,.., ~.., ,,. ,-,.. .... PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP N SITE Attachment 3 ..... L_AR K AVE. LARK AVENUE SHERWOOD .YT~-- - PARK' - L AU R---~- ROAD _ r- --~' ~'~ '" I*o."~ i I ~'-~ I ,,'1 ,,' I ,,'t .,'/~,'1 .o.~ : PROPERTY LINE MAP N MAPLEWOOD OFFICE PARK 1705 COPE AVENUE EAST MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 55109 TELEPHONE: 777-7300 LAKES ORTHODONTIC ASSOCIATES, P.A. Kevin L. Denis, D.D.S., M.S. Kristin R. Lundquist, D.D.S. Practice Umited to Orthodontics Attachment 4 CHISAGO LAKES MEDICAL CENTER POST OFFICE BOX 795 LINDSTROM, MINNESOTA 55045 TELEPHONE: 257-4445 May 31, 1996 City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear City Representatives: I am hereby applying for the vacation of'Kennard Street between Cope Avenue and Lark Street. The reason for this application is to provide me enough flexibility to build a 2700 to 2800 square foot, single story orthodontic office building and parking lot. I have a purchase agreement with Dr. and Mrs. Dennis Grabowski for the west 150 feet of Lot 1, Block 6, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul, which is located at the comer of Cope Avenue and Kennard Street. This purchase agreement is contingent on the success of this application for vacation. Kennard Street does not currently go through between Cope and Lark, but is still platted as a street. The current setback requirements from the residential property to the south, Cope Avenue to the North, and Keanard Street to the West, do not leave enough space for placement of a building and parking lot. Vacation of Kennard with the maintenance of an easement for utilities would ease the setback requirement on the West side of the property and allow me the flexibilty to build. There are no plans by the Public Works department to build this street; there is sufficient ingress and egress to serve the neighborhood now. In discussions with the Public Works department, they anticipated resistance from the neighboring residents if they ever tried to put Kennard Street through. A through street parallel to White Bear Avenue could potentially adversely increase traffic through the residential neighborhood. For these reasons, I think vacation of this street would benefit both the City of Maplewood and the residents in this area. Please consider approval of this application. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Kevin Li Denis D.D.S. Attachment 5 STREET VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dr. Kevin Denis applied for the vacation of the following-described street fight-of- way: That part of Kennard Street between the north right-of-way line of Lark Avenue and the south right-of-way line of Cope Avenue in Section 10, Township 29, Range 22 WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On June 17, 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this vacation. On July 8, 1996, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: Outlot A, Maple Park Shores; the south 1/2 of the vacated alley adjacent and the west 75 feet of Lot 2, Block 6 of Smith and Taylor's Addition to North Saint Paul; and the north 1/2 of the vacated alley adjacent and the west 75 feet of Lot 1, Block 6 of Smith and Taylor's Addition to North Saint Paul. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacations for the following reasons: It is in the public interest. The city and the applicant have no plans to build a street north of this site. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage and utility easement over the entire fight-of-way. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on July 8, 1996. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Wetland Buffer Variance - General Sprinkler Corporation County Road D, East of Highway 61 June 10, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Frank Winiecki, of General Sprinkler Corporation, is proposing to build a 14,784-square-foot, one-story building for his business. This building would be on County Road D east of Highway 61, 1,100 feet northeast of the new Lexus dealership which is presently under construction. Refer to the maps on pages 6-8. Request The applicant is requesting that the city council approve a variance for a narrower wetland-protection buffer. Refer to the letter on pages 9-10. City code requires 100 feet. The proposed buffer would range in width from 10 feet to 80 feet. Mr. Winiecki, therefore, is asking for a variance of up to 90 feet in reduced buffer width. The wetland buffer is required 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. Winiecki plans to apply for design approval if the city council grants this variance. BACKGROUND February 26, 1996: The city council approved a wetland buffer reduction variance 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. DISCUSSION Lexus' Variance In the case of Lexus' variance, the city council allowed the reduced wetland buffer width because of the poor condition of the existing buffer on that site. The Lexus site had been filled and compacted over the years to a point that the land adjacent to the wetland did not provide any benefit to the wetland. The council determined that a 25-foot-wide buffer that was improved and functional would be more beneficial than a 100-foot-wide hard-packed, nonfunctional buffer. This is not the same situation, though, with the proposed site. The land adjacent to the wetland on the proposed site is in its natural state and has not been disturbed. Watershed District's Comments Mr. Pat Conrad, of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, listed several concerns about this proposal. Refer to the letter on pages 11-12. He has concerns about sedimentation going into the wetland from the gravelled storage yard and that the narrow buffer proposed is "quite unreasonable." In concluding his letter he states that "it appears that the building and parking lot design being proposed is much larger than can be supported by this piece of land." Sherri Buss, the staff person from the Phalen Chain of Lakes Watershed Project, also gave input. See page 11 of Mr. Conrad's letter. Ms. Buss also feels that the amount of wetland buffer reduction proposed is "completely unreasonable." She expressed concern over continually granting large variance from the wetland ordinance in this area. Variance Request The intent of the ordinance is to protect wetlands. The ordinance already provides for reduced setback standards for lesser-quality wetlands. The watershed district, however, classified the adjacent wetland as 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 permitted more land area for development on this site. With this in mind, and the district's negative response to the proposed variance, the city council should uphold the intent of the ordinance and deny this request. The site plan on page 8 shows how much land would be left for development on this site if the 100-foot wetland buffer requirement was met. Staff realizes that the city council may need to grant a variance for this site to develop. Staff cannot say what we would recommend as the maximum variance that should be allowed. This would depend on the nature of the specific proposal and what method(s) of wetland protection would be proposed. Site Design Concerns The code requires that the applicant pave a 24-foot-wide access drive to the row of parking behind the building. This area is presently shown as part of the gravelled storage yard. (The applicant must also get a conditional use permit for this outside storage.) Thought should also be given to providing parking closer to the building. Handicap parking spaces should be next to the building so disabled persons do not have to cross drive aisles. This is especially a concern during the winter. RECOMMENDATION Deny the proposed wetland-protection buffer reduction variance for the following roasons: The variance would not 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 be excessive and not offer any protection to the wetland, which is the intent of the ordinance. 2. The applicant has not shown that strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use if the variance was denied. The proposed variance is excessive. Another business should be able to develop this site without the need for such a large variance. 3. The proposed gravelled storage yard would contribute large amounts of sediment that would be a potential pollution problem for the wetland. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.79 acres Existing land use: undeveloped SURROUNDING LANDUSES North: County Road D and 1-694 South: Undeveloped property West: Two single dwellings East: Northern States Power substation 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 wetland that surrounds 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. "Undue 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.var Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Variance Justification and Summary dated May 15, 1996 5. Letter from Pat Conrad dated June 6, 1996 6. Site Plan date-stamped May 17, 1996 (separate attachment) 5 Attachment B[.A~ AV~. VADNNS HEIGHTS COUNTY ~. SUIdMr~ CT. 2. COUICr'~ Cm. 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LY~,IA ~1'. KOHLMAh ROAD CON// ~0: '< ~ AVE ~ DENON? AVE. AVE ~ BROOKS ROAD COuhr~r' COURT KOHLMA~ CT. LOCATION MAP REQUIRED 100 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER LINE PROPOSED BUILDING WETLAND EDGE SITE PLAN Attachment 3 m~Rem~mm- COUNTY . ROAD D / 1320 // 1322 3085 ,.L..5. -4 3110 A 3o~ ~ ~ BACKYARD BUILDING SYSTEMS VADNAIS HEIGHTS ~) ~o.\5 M1 ?OP_ 4~ E c?.$ PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP N 8 Attachment 4 Page 2 of 3 Yay 15. 1995 ZONING The property is zoned as Y-1 light manufacturing district. Hy business activity meets the ~aplewood code for~ - Division 9, M-1 light manufacturing district. - Section 36-186 permitted use line item #4. SITE DEVELOPMENT City buffer standards list § classes of wetlands buffer width dimensions. Which class is applied to this property by the city will determine if this property is developable. WEST ~ETLAND A flowing stream 6 to 10 feet wide is located parallel to the west property line. This stream is 6 to 10 feet below the land where the building will be located. The wetland district has delineated by flag their proposed wetland boundary line. (See pictures.) My site development drawing indicated that 60'0" is between th~ building foundation and the delineated wetland flag location. As shown, asphalt parking, driveway and.grass areas will be between the building foundation and the wetlands delineation line. SOUTH WETLAND There is no wetland on the south property area. Flagged delineated wetland varies from 10 to 80 feel south of and parallel to the south property line. (See pictures.) My site development drawing indicates that 72'0' is between the building foundation and the delineated wetland flag locations. As shown, asphalt parking, drive and grass areas will be between the building and the proper.fy line. EAST WETLAND There is no wetland on the east properly area. Flagged delineated wetland varies from 10 to 50 feet east of the east property line. 9 Page 2 of 3 May 15. 1996 VARIANCE 1. Strict enforcement of the maximum buffer widths could make this property not developable, the developable area would be reduced to the point that it would be economically no! practical. 2. This property is unique. The area wetland are low. The property is high and dry and not subiect to flooding. The majority of the property is at the same elevation as the frontage County Road ~D". 3. Approval of my site development plan would be consistent with reasonable development for this property while providing consideration to the area wetlands. I believe that my proposed development is in keeping with the spirit and intent of providing wetlands protection. SUMMARY I am developing this land for the purpose of moving my business from Little Canada to Maplewood. I have been a recognized professional and responsible contractor for 34 years. I am a good corporate citizen. I have a son and daughters working in my business who will ultimately take over for the purpose of continuing our enterprise and tradition. I desire to join the Maplewood community. I sincerely believe that my proposed development will contribute and quality commerce to the City of Maplewood. Detailed site grading plans, drainage plans, landscape plans and building plans will be prepared for a formal submittal and building permit application upon approval of my attaChed site development layout. Sincerely, Frank M. Winiecki President 10 0~¥06/199E, 1~: 00 6127776~:07 RWMW[, P'~GE Ramsey-Washington Metro District June 6, 1996 Tom Ekstrand Maplcwood Community Development Attachment 5 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (6t2) 777-366s fax (612) 777-6:307 Re: General Sprinkler Wetland Buffer Variance Request Tom, Thank you for submitting thc above referenced project to the watershed district for our comments. In addition to the watershed district staff, the Phalen Chain of Lakes Watershed Project Coordinator rcviewed the plans. I will summarize her comments for you first. First of all, she expressed great concern with continually granting large variances from the wetland ordiance in this area. She feels that reductions below 50' for this type of wetland are completely unreasonable. She then suggested thc following changes for the project: Eliminate the parking spaces at the north and south ends and have only one driveway to the back. If parking is needed, put some on the grassed area in front or overflow parking on gravel in the back. Reduce asphalt drive to minimum width needed. Require planting native trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs on all disturbed areas. Require. a landscape plan showing placement and type of vegetation to be planted. Require plantings at back to form a screen to protect wetland habitat and future trail. Please contact Sherri directly if you have any questions regarding her comments. I agree with thc comments made by Sherri regarding the reduction of the buffer. The applicant is proposing a ten foot setback from the wetland on the southeast corner of the site. This is quite unreasonable. The elevations are not shown on the plans, so it is possible th'at the applicant may actually have to encroach even further into the wetland buffer. Along the stream on the west side of thc site, the applicant is proposing to have parking directly up to the top of the stream bank. The slope, of this bank is around 2:1 which makes it very sensitive to erosion problems during and after grading. Thc hatched area at the rear of the site is labeled Depressed rain water holding pond for all yard runoff water. Again, thc grades arc not shown, so thc pond can not be assessed. The pond obviously will not be able to handle the runoff from every storm, so what capacity do~s it have? It is very unlikely that a pond of the siz.~ shown ( assuming typical depths) would not be adequate to treat the water from the site prior to discharge into the wetland. From the District's experience, graveled areas contribute large amounts of sediment during storms. The pond as proposext will fill in quickly and would need to be excavate<l routinely. On the other hand, gravel is more pervious than asphalt, so more water will infiltrate. If the area were to be graveled the pond may need to be larger to compensate. 14:00 6127776:~:07 F"~,GE 0'.2' To conclude these cornnmnts, it appears that the building and parking lot design being proposed is much larger than can be supported by thi.$ piece of land. Plea.~ contact me at 777-3665 if you have ,any questions regarding my comments. Sincerely. Patrick~'J. Conrad District Technician 12