Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1996BOOK 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. July 1, 1996 4. Approval of Agenda o MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 1996 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Unfinished Business a. Wetland Setback Vadance - General Sprinkler Corporation (County Road D) 6. Visitor Presentations o Commission Presentations a. July 8 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer b. July 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Kittddge Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour - July 29 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: 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 JULY 1, 1996 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairman Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Lester Axdahl Bunny Brueggeman Barbara Ericson Lorraine Fischer Jack Frost Kevin Kittridge Dave Kopesky Gary Pearson William Rossbach Milo Thompson Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present (arrived at 7:03 p.m.) III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the minutes of June 17, 1996, as submitted. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Brueggeman, Ericson, Fischer, Frost, Kittridge, Pearson, Thompson Abstentions-Kopesky The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1997-2001 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan Ken Roberts, associate planner, read the public hearing notice and presented the staff report. Mike McGuire, Maplewood city manager, introduced an 18-minute video on the various proposed projects. Because of problems with the sound portion of the video, Mr. McGuire asked for questions from the commission while it was being repaired. Commissioner Rossbach said he was not in agreement with certain portions of the plan and asked for guidelines on how to vote. Mr. McGuire replied that the commissioner's role was to review the plan and offer comments, as a commission or an individual, to the council through the minutes of the meeting. He said the primary function of the planning commission should be to review the ClP from a land-use standpoint. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-01-96 -2- Commissioner Rossbach felt the proposed enlargement and improvements for Harvest and Hazelwood Parks, in the same neighborhood, were not appropriate uses and "would be an infringement on what could have been anticipated" by the area residents. Mr. McGuire conceded that there could possibly be a conflict from a land-use standpoint, but said parks are generally viewed as complimentary to any zoning or surrounding development. Commissioner Rossbach compared the traffic, noise, and light that would be generated by these two fully- developed sport "complexes" to commercial development. Commissioner Fischer offered some history of parks in the Hillside area. Commissioner Kittridge asked for an explanation of the need for the ballflelds. Bruce Anderson, parks and recreation director, briefly explained the long-range master plan for a number of ballfields and, specifically, Harvest Park. Mr. Anderson said lighting systems are now very advanced and it is almost possible to stop light right on the property line. He felt it was unfair to compare these ballfields to a business commercial area. Mr. Anderson said there were benefits to developing community playfields as opposed to the current utilization of neighborhood parks. Commissioner Fischer commented on the parking limitations of the Goodrich ballfields. Mr. Anderson answered specific questions from Commissioner Rossbach. The commission agreed to table this item until the video was available. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Goodwill Industries Store Conditional Use Permit (2250 White Bear Avenue North) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Fischer asked about 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 July 8, 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 the south side of County Road D east of Highway 61. This site is 1,100 feet northeast of the new Lexus dealership which is presently under construction. 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 and 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. Planning Commission Tabling and Plan Revisions On June 17, 1996, the planning commission tabled action on this request and required the applicant to resubmit a revised site plan. Mr. Winiecki's letter on pages 11-13 and the revised site plan (separate attachment) address the planning commission's concerns. DISCUSSION The Revised Plan The applicant has not increased the width of his proposed wetland buffer. Although Mr. Winiecki added earth berms and small grass areas, the wetland protection ordinance considers these as ground disturbances. Wetland buffers are meant to be undisturbed areas. The berms are intended to keep site runoff from the wetland and direct it to the holding pond. I reviewed this revised plan with Mr. Pat Conrad of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Mr. Conrad had the following comments and concerns: 1. He has concern over the size of the pond. There are no computations for the pond to evaluate its holding capacity and ability to function. 2. He i,~ concerned about a potential erosion problem with the berms. 3. The building has to be two feet higher than the maximum overflow of the pond. 4. The pond outlet must be a pipe, not an overflow ditch. 5. In summary, the applicant has not reduced the impact to the wetland over the previous plan. Staff concurs with Mr. Conrad. Mr. Winiecki has made several alterations on his plan as described in his letter. The main issue of the wetland setback, however, has not been sufficiently addressed or resolved. The proposed wetland buffer would still be excessively narrow and contrary to the intent of the code. Wetland buffers not only serve as a way to preserve water quality and lessen development impact, they also provide wildlife habitat and aesthetic benefit. The proposed plan is not serving these needs. It is very similar to the original plan. 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 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 as a wetland buffer. The city council determined that a 25-foot-wide functional buffer would be more beneficial than a 100-foot-wide hard-packed, nonfunctional buffer. The applicant's situation is different. The land adjacent to the wetland on Mr. VViniecki's site is in its natural state and has not been disturbed or its usefulness as a buffer diminished. 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 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 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 are proposed. COMMITTEE ACTION June 17,~1996: The planning commission tabled action on this proposal and required the applicant to resubmit a revised site plan. RECOMMENDATION Deny the proposed wetland-protection buffer reduction variance for the following reasons: 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 would not significantly protect the wetland, which is the intent of the ordinance. 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. The reason for granting a 75-foot-wide wetland buffer width variance for the new Lexus automobile dealership does not apply to this site. The existing buffer on the proposed site is undisturbed and functions properly as a wetland buffer. The quality of the existing buffer on the Lexus site had been seriously damaged over time. 4. The proposal offers virtually no benefit to the wetland for wildlife habitat and aesthetic enhancement, which are also functions of a wetland buffer. 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 PAST ACTION 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. 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.rev Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Variance Justification and Summary dated May 15, 1996 5. Applicant's Letter of Explanation for his Revisions dated June 27, 1996 6. Letter from Pat Conrad dated June 6, 1996 7. Revised Site Plan date-stamped June 27, 1996 (separate attachment) Attachment VADNAIS HEIGHT~ ® COUNTY RD. 2. i RO~D LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 , ~/ VADNAIS HEIGHTS ./'7~,~ / .'~"" · .......... . .' ?. '~' .. ,:. ~ iIk~em~l&i~ COUNTY ROAD D'~mmm~~~~ - '. -.~i ~ " _ BACKYARD BUILDING SYSTEMS ,~ :":' .-:~_~L_ _ ~,!/ - LEXUS 3000~. ~ G' S~)~LCLD - E NSI Attachment 3 EDGE OF THE PROPOSED WETLAND BUFFER EDGE OF THE REQUIRED 100-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER ~ .... >-- COUNTY ROAD D PROPOSED BUILDING ,'WETLAND EDGE SITE PLAN N Attachment 4 Page 2 of 3 May 1~, 1995 ZONING The property is zoned as M-1 light manufacturing district. My business activity meets the Maplewood code for~ - Division 9, M-1 light manufacturing district. - Section 36-186 permitted use line item #4. SITE DEVELOPMENT City buffer standards list 5 classes of wetlands buffer width dimensions. Which class is applied to this property by the city will determine if this property is developable. WEST WETLAND 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 the 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 feet 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 property line. EAST WETLAND There is no wetland on the east property area. Flagged delineated wetland varies from 10 to 50 feet east of the east property line. 9 Page ~ of 3 May 15, 1996 VARIANCE 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 not practical· This property is unique· The area wetland are low. The property is high and dry and not subject to flooding. The majority of the property is at the same elevation as the frontage County Road 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 inten! 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 jobs 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 ENERAL SPRINKLER CORPORATION ~une 27, 1996 Attachment 5 CONTRACTORS FOR ALL TYPES OF FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS MINNESOTA LICENSE #C00002 WISCONSIN LICENSE #SC0083 City of Maplewood 1830 E Co. Rd. B Maplewood, MN $5109 Attn~ Tom Ekstrand Associate Planner Re: Tract "A" Registered Survey #525 County Road D East of Hwy 61 Subject: Zoning Variance Dear Toms On Monday June 17th I appeared before the city planning commission for the purpose of reviewing my site development plan and variance request. After much discussion the commission tabled my request for a wetlands setback variance. I was instructed to perform plan revisions for drainage and other considerations and report back to the July 1, 1996 commission meeting with new plans. REV I S IONS 1. Relocated two handicapped parking spaces to the front of the building. 2. Asphalt all traffic and parking areas on the site. 3. Rearrange parking configuration. 4. Provide rear grass water absorption area. 5. Provide rock lined rear holding pond area. 6. Provide front yard absorption area for the north half of the roof water run off. 7. Provide three side yard depressed grass water hold ~: 433 E. LITTLE CANADA ROAD , ST. PAUl.. MINNESOTA · 55117 · (612) 484-5903 · 4~95~4 '~AX ~ 497 l~th STREET · OSCEO~, WISCONSIN · ~20 · ~15) 294-4~7 · 878-6777 Page ~ of 3 ~une 27, 1996 Provide raised dirt berm at the east. west and south yards to retain all run off water on the property. Provide rock lined holding pond at the rear of the property. Noted variance dimensions of asphalt edge to wetland delineation line and building foundation corners· 25'0" Wetlands delineation line to edge of asphalt parking and traffic areas. 60'0" West building foundation to the wetlands delineation line. 72'0" South building foundation to the wetlands delineation line. * Attached are (16) copies of one inch equals 20'0" scale drawings noted as revision 06-24-96. * Attached is (1) copy of a 8 1/2" x 11~ reduced scale drawing. My previous submittal included site pictures, soil borings and city application for review forms. SUMMARY I have addressed the question of run off water drainage. The surrounding area is heavily wooded· The development of the subject property will not affect the present wooded conditions off the property. The wooded steep bank area along the west property line will be left undisturbed except to develop the containment berm parallel to the top of the bank. The containment berms will be grass and new trees which will provide for reducing the development impact on the adjacent wooded land. Page ~ of 3 lune 28, 1996 My request for a variance is consistent with the nearby Lexus car dealership development which abuts the same wetlands area. As requested by the planning commission I am prepared to appear at the luly 1, 1996 commission meeting. Kindly see that I am on lhe agenda. Sincerely, President OF:, ." 0 E...'" 1 ?35 14: O0 E, 12777E, ~:07 F'.,.h.lhl[, F'~,_:,E 01 Ramsey-Washtngton Metro June 6,1996 Attachment 6 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 {612) 7-/7-3665 fax (612.) 777-6307 Tom Ekstrand Maplewood Community D~velopment Re: General Sprinkler Wetland Buffer Variance Request Tom, Thank you for submitting the 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 reviewed the plans. I will summarize her comments for you first. First of MI, 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 the 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 phmtings 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 the comments made by Shem regarding the reduction of the buffer. The applicant is proposing a ten foot setback from the wetland on the southeast comer of the site. This is quite unreasonable. The elevations ,are not shown on the plans, so it is possible that the applicant may actually have to encroach even further into the wetland buffer. Along the stream on the west side of the 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. The hatched area at the rear of the site is labeled Depressed rain water holding pond for all yard runoff water. Again, the grades are not shown, so the pond can not be assessed. The pond obviously will not be able to handle the runoff from every storm, so what capacity does it have? It is very unlikely that a pond of the size 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 expe. rience, graveled areas contribute large amounts of .s~iment during storms. The pond as propo,~ed will fill in quickly and would need to be excavated 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 l~ger to compensate. 14 0~. '" 0 ~,..'" 1996 1 ,-1: O0 ~,127776307 g!t,.~I:.l!,.E, P'~,.:,E 02 To conclude these comments, it appears that the building and parking lot design being proposed is much larger than can be supported by this piece of land. Plea.~e contact me at 777-3665 if you have any questions regarding my comments. Sincerely, l-'atricle"J. Conrad District Technician Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-96 -2- B. Wetland Setback Variant,= General Sprinkler Corporation (County Road D) Melinda Coleman, director of community development, presented the staff report. Frank Winiecki, of General Sprinkler Corporation, was present at the meeting. Mr. VViniecki said the rear yard was for parking and access to bring inventory into the building, not for storage. He further added that he didn't show a dirt berm, that could be installed along the property line, that would contain any settlement. Mr. Winiecki did not think it was necessary to asphalt the entire backyard. However, he would agree to asphalt the access to the parking areas and the parking areas. Mr. Winiecki said the large grass area in the front and on the sides of the building would allow for drainage and an aesthetic view of the building. He thought the handicap parking spaces could be put in the front of the building. Mr. Winiecki felt the property was unusual, and it was necessary to physically view the site before making a rational decision. He explained a ditch runs almost parallel with the west property line, with running water, 10 feet below the elevation of the property. Mr. Winiecki showed colored pictures of the area. He said the lot was approximately 80,000 square feet and the building 15,000 square feet, so that left approximately 65,000 square feet of land. He thought this was a small percentage of land use for building area, and that the 100-foot setback uses a lot of the owner's property for nothing. Mr. Winiecki felt there was no possible way to construct a building, allow for parking and meet the required setback on this site. Commissioner Thompson asked if a compromise could be reached for a less intensive use. If a 25-foot setback were to be considered, Mr. Winiecki said there would be a problem in the lower right hand section of the parking area. Possibly a couple parking spaces would have to be relocated from this area. He proposed a berm along the property line to contain runoff, and channeling the drainage to a holding pond at the rear of the property with the excess going to the ditch. Commissioner Frost suggested a possible variance from the required 35 parking spaces. Commissioner Kittridge was concerned about ensudng the quality of the water that goes into the wetland. Commissioner Frost thought the project was feasible but needed additional planning. Ken Haider, director of public works, explained the permeability of gravel, asphalt, and natural ground. Commissioner Frost suggested using only enough gravel in the back to satisfy Mr. Winiecki's needs and leaving the remainder natural ground. Mr. Frost recommended tabling this item for two weeks. Dudng this time, Mr. Winiecki could work with staff and the watershed distdct to devise an agreeable plan. Mr. Winiecki agreed to this suggestion. Commissioner Axdahl asked if there was any reason this building should face north, instead of south. Mr. Axdahl also wondered about the possibility of a two-story building. Mr. Winiecki said overhead doors would not be allowed on the front of the building so it could not face County Road D, the street side. Mr. Winiecki and the commission discussed various options. Ms. Coleman was concerned that the commission might be giving the impression that a plan showing a 25-foot setback, similar to the Lexus project, might be approved. She emphasized that this project was very different and, without the support of the watershed district and more concrete work on the drainage and other issues, she was not optimistic about this being acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-96 Commissioner Brueggeman felt uncomfortable without an exact plan. Commissioner Fischer commented about the uncertainty of having the full information. Ms. Fischer asked the city engineer if a pond could be designed on this site to meet the qualifications for pretreatment, before going into the wetlands, that would meet the guidelines. Mr. Haider said, under the current ordinance, this could not be done. He added that this is not a drainage issue, it is a protective issue for the wetlands. Ed Simmonet, representing Mr. Lactorin (the owner of the property), emphasized his client's position. He said Mr. Lactodn had owned the property since 1952 and the 100-foot setback requirement was new within the last year and one-half. Mr. Simmonet thought it could be considered "undue hardship" if Mr. Lactodn cannot sell this property. Commissioner Kittridge moved the Planning Commission recommend tabling the proposed wetland-protection buffer reduction variance request pending resubmittal by the applicant. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Kittridge, Pearson, Thompson Nays--Brueggeman, Ericson The motion passed. BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 5, 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. July 15, 1996 4. Approval of Agenda 5. New Business a. Street Vacation - Curve Street, south of Frost Avenue (AT & T) 6. Visitor Presentations 7. Commission Presentations a. July 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson b. August 12 Council Meeting: No planning items 8. Staff Presentations a. September 2, 1996 meeting - Labor Day 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: 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 JULY 16, 1996 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Lester Axdahl Present Bunny Brueggeman Present Barbara Ericson Present Lorraine Fischer Present Jack Frost Absent Kevin Kittridge Present Dave Kopesky Present Gary Pearson Absent William Rossbach Absent Milo Thompson Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. Ve July 1, 1996 Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the minutes of July 1, 1996, as submitted. Commissioner Kittridge seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Ayes-all Commissioner Ericson seconded. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Wetland Setback Variancc General Sprinkler Corporation (County Road D) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts said the revised plan has not increased the width of the buffer, although earth berms and grass areas have been added to some of the landscaping area with the buffer. He also said it was important to maintain a buffer in this area because the site is undisturbed and the existing buffer is functioning. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commission. Commissioner Thompson felt the ditches on the perimeter of the property were not pristine. He said the soil from the stream bed had been put on either the watershed or the owner's property. Frank Winiecki, of General Sprinkler Corporation, was present. Mr. Winiecki said he revised the plans to address some of the concerns that the planning commission voiced at their last meeting. However, he did not reduce the size of the building. Mr. Winiecki reviewed the changes in his Planning Commission Minutes of 07-15-96 -2- plan. He said he is asking for a 60-foot setback on one side of the building, 72 feet on the other side, and to have the parking areas in the 25-foot variance area. Five feet of this parking area would be part of the berm. Mr. Winiecki also responded to Patrick Conrad's (of the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District) comments in his June 6, 1996, letter. Mr. Winiecki pointed out that Clarence Lacktorin had owned this property since 1952. The wetland easement has only been established within the last two years. Mr. Lacktorin was not advised of this easement and advertised the property as having 1.79 acres. He also noted that there are adjacent wetlands off the property. Mr. Winiecki answered questions from the commission. Clarence Lacktorin, the owner of the property, was present. Mr. Lacktorin said he sold land south and east of this property within the last two years to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Commissioner Brueggeman moved the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed wetland-protection buffer reduction variance for the following reasons: 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 would not significantly protect the wetland, which is the intent of the ordinance. 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 can probably develop this site without the need for such a large variance. The reason for granting a 75-foot-wide wetland buffer width variance for the new Lexus automobile dealership does not apply to this site. The existing buffer on the proposed site is undisturbed and functions properly as a wetland buffer. The quality of the existing buffer on the Lexus site had been seriously damaged over time. The proposal offers virtually no protection to the wetland for wildlife habitat and aesthetic enhancement, which are also functions of a wetland buffer. Commissioner Fischer seconded. Commissioner Fischer commented that this appears to be an "intense use" for the amount of surface and where the buffers are required. She recognized that some variance buffer will be necessary for this site. Ms. Fischer said the absence of an engineered pond and having no elevations shown on the plan were factors in her decision. Commissioner Thompson encouraged the applicant to use staff's suggestions in trying to find a workable solution for the site. Ayes-all The motion passed. Commissioner Axdahl questioned why the ditch on the west side is too straight to be natural and has too much pitch to be consistent with noneroding sidewalls in a pdstine wetland situation. He asked about the intrusion on personal property dghts. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, compared this request to the wetland setback variance given to the Lexus car Planning Commission Minutes of 07-15-96 -3- dealership at 3000 Maplewood Drive North. She said Lexus had a hydrologist, wetland specialist, and engineers to evaluate the situation and work with staff and the watershed district to arrive at solutions. Mr. Coleman said staff felt Mr. Winiecki's project was too large to fit on this site and invited him to work with available resources to locate a more practical site. VI. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. July 8, 1996 City Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer reported on this meeting. B. July 22, 1996 City Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson will attend this meeting. VIII. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. Annual Tour--July 29, 1996 Ken Roberts, associate planner, reminded the commissioners of the Maplewood tour. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Curve Street Vacation - AT&T Cellular Telephone Tower 1899 Clarence Street July 30, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description AT&T Wireless Services, is proposing to install a cellular-telephone tower facility. The applicant proposes this facility behind Woodbury Mechanical's storage garage at 1899 Clarence Street. Refer to the maps on pages 4-5. The tower would be a 150-foot-tall monopole with no guy wires. The applicant would also install a 12- by 28-foot precast-concrete building to contain the electrical equipment for the tower. Request AT&T is again requesting a street vacation for undeveloped Curve Street west of Woodbury Mechanicars property. Refer to the site plan on page 6. The city council considered this street vacation, along with several other requests, last January but took no action on the vacation. The council instead directed staff to negotiate an agreement between the city and AT&T for a rental fee for the tower to be on the Curve Street right-of-way. BACKGROUND January 22, 1996: The city council approved the following for AT&T: 1. A variance from the code establishing a one-year moratorium on the installation of any telephone, television or radio towers. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) to put up the cellular telephone tower. 3. The site plan and the design plan for the mechanical building. As stated above, the council also reviewed the applicant's request to vacate Curve Street but took no action in lieu of securing a lease agreement with AT&T to use the right-of-way. DISCUSSION Street Vacation vs Lease Agreement The city attorney's letter on pages 9--10 states that "a lease of the Curve Street right-of-way will not satisfy the setback requirements." He is saying that even if the city entered into such an agreement with AT&T, AT&T would still have to meet the required 30-foot setback from Curve Street. Since the site encroaches into the right-of-way, this requirement would certainly not be met. The applicant would either have to apply for a setback variance or apply again for the street vacation as they have done. Staff is still supportive of the street vacation. All of the abutting neighbors have signed and submitted a petition in favor. There are also no lots that Curve Street would serve. Furthermore, there is no basis to allow a setback variance for the proposed facility when there is the option of vacating unneeded street right-of-way. As a condition of this vacation, the city should retain a 10-foot-wide utility easement for an existing storm sewer pipe. There is an existing storm sewer in place north of the Woodbury Mechanical property. The easement, however, is not wide enough. Ten additional feet are needed. Refer to the map on page 6. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page 11. This resolution vacates the Curve Street right-of-way between Summer Avenue and Frost Avenue. It would be in the public interest to vacate Curve Street because: 1. There are no abutting lots that could benefit from its construction. 2. The right-of-way width is only 30 feet wide. The minimum right-of-way width required is 60 feet. 3. The city has no intention to build Curve Avenue. Approval of this vacation shall be subject to the city retaining an easement for utility purposes over, under and across all that part of vacated Curve Street adjacent to Block 6, GLADSTONE, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies Southerly of the Westerly extension of a line drawn parallel with and 20.00 feet Northerly of the South line of Lot 1 of said Block 6, and which lies Northerly of the Westerly extension of a line drawn parallel with and 10.00 feet Southerly of the North line of Lot 2 of said Block 6, GLADSTONE. 2 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 29,600 square feet Existing land use: Woodbury Mechanical garage SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Richard's Market South: The back yards of single dwellings West: Undeveloped Curve Street and abandoned railroad right-of-way (future trail) East: Clarence Street, single dwellings and Gladstone fire station PAST ACTION Moratorium December 18, 1995: The city council adopted the moratorium ordinance against the installation of any telephone, television or radio transmission/receiving towers. The moratorium would last for one year, unless the city council adopts regulations sooner that govern the installation of tower facilities. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC-M (business commercial modified) Zoning: BC-M Street Vacation - Finding for Approval To vacate right-of-way, state law requires that the city council must find that it would be in the public interest. p:sec15~at&t.vac Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Photocopy of the proposed tower 5. Applicant's Street Vacation Justification dated December 8, 1995 6. Attorney's letter dated February 12, 1996 7. Resolution 3 Attachment 1 DR, < PAUL COUNT~ NOR AVE. b'~RVAJS JUNCTION SKILL AW.. ~I, IERREN AV~.. r. DGEMI. AW... AVE.. ART.. ROSEWOOD AV'C AV~. S. 'LOCATION MAP 4 N Attachment L&L' HALL MOBILE HOMES MILLER'S MEATS ]; ~ --1!--i~ ~ i t"- · '"' ' z~o ~ GLADSTONE CATERING --- ....· .... __--:.~~ --FROST ........ · --%-i IViiKE'$ EP E~~ DENTAL _LAB 11--/T~,~ -- i..-'! GLADSTONE'S WINDOW AND DOOR STORE m.i SUMMER IRY MECHANICAL PROPERTY PROPOSED ANTENNA SITE) '~, ~ CURVE STREET RIGHT-OgW,~.~ _4 PROPOSED TO BE.. VAfATED __ ~ WANLESS CONSTRUCTION " (PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED ANTENNA SITE) PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP FROST AVENUE 11' ~ PROPOSED SI PROPOSED MONC Attachment 3 SITE PLAN 6 UTILITY EASEMENT REQUIRED WOODBURY MECHANICAL N Attachment 4 Attachment 5 A'r&T Celluler Divlelon December 8, 1995 AT&T Wireless Services 2515 24th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55406 512 721-1560 FAX 612 721-4770 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning Commission City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN. :55109 RE: Curve Street Right of Way Vacation Honorable Mayor, Council Members and Commissioners: This leu, er accompanies an application for a Public Vacation of Curve Street between Frost and Summer Avenues. The request is being made in the name of AT&T Wireless Services. The fee owners of the property have consented to this application and have entered into a lease for a portion of their property. The reason for the request is to allow construction of a small building proposed to be constructed to the west of an existing structure at 1899 Clearance Street. By vacating this fight of way, it will allow the applicant to meet set back requirements. There is no public need for this street as it has not been conslructed and it's 30 foot easement width is too narrow to allow for 2-way traffic. This street was to have been a one-way street and opposing traffic would have been carried by Ridge Street on the opposite side of the Non, hem Pacific Railway Co. easement. The Ridge Street right of way was vacated per Document # 1801806 filed 6-25-71. All lots abutting this right of way in this area currently have access to Clearance Street. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ted Olson Property Manager enclosures 8 ~-':"~J Recycled Pa~er JOHN F. BANNIGAN. JR. PATRICK J. KELLY JAMES J. HANTON JANET M. WILEBSKI JOHN W, QLJARNSTROM Banni y, P.A. A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 1750 NORTH CENTRAL LIFE TOWER 445 MINNESOTA STREET SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55]01 February 12, 1996 Attachment 6 ~612~224.3781 FAX 1612~223-8019 Mr. Michael McGuire Maplewood City Manager Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Ms. Melinda Coleman Director of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: ,4T&T Cellular Telephone Tower/Setback Compliance Dear Mr. McGuire and Ms. Coleman: This office has been reviewing what options, if any, exist relative to the recent action regarding the AT&T Cellular Telephone Tower proposed for 1899 Clarence Street. As you may recall, the request for that site included an application for a street vacation for the 600 foot long section of Curve Street lying west of the property. This vacation, was necessary in order to achieve compliance with Maplewood Code $36- 28(c)(6) which reqmres a minimum setback of 30 feet fi'om a street fight-of-way. The proposed tower does not comply with that setback requirement. The City Council approved the tower but did not approve the street vacation. Therefore, the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is not yet effective until that condition is addressed. A question was raised whether the City could enter into some form of a lease relative to the Curve Street right-of-way in order to address this setback requirement. I have reviewed that option with Associate Planner Ekstrand. It is the opinion of this office that a "lease" of the Curve Street right-of-way will not satisfy the setback requirements. Mr. Michael McGulre Ms. Melinda Coleman Page 2 February 12, 1996 After reviewing the matter carefully, and discussing the question with Mr. Ekstrand, it is the opinion of t_hls office that the only option available for the applicant is to seek a variance. from Maplewood Code S36-28(c)(6). There is simply no other flexibility within the City Code which might assist in this particular question. I would recommend that the applicant be immediately notified of t_his opinion. I would also recommend that the applicant be encouraged to submit an application for a setback variance. If there are any additional questions or concerns, please contact me immediately. Sincerely yours, JJH:cge B~ & KE! ~! JY, P.A. //' // · lO VACATION RESOLUTION Attachment 7 WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless Services applied for the vacation of the following described street: The Curve Street right-of-way lying west of Block 6, Gladstone. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On January 22, 1996, the city council reviewed this street vacation and took no action. They instead directed staff to negotiate an agreement between the city and AT&T for a rental fee for the tower to be on the Curve Street right-of-way. The city attorney, subsequently, determined that a lease of the Curve Street right-of-way would not satisfy the city's setback requirements. AT&T, consequently, reapplied for the street vacation. 3. On August 5, 1996, the planning commission again reviewed this proposed street vacation and recommended that the city council this vacation. On ,1996, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices 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: Lots 1-12 and Lot 29 Block 6, Gladstone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation. It would be in the public interest because: 1. There are no abutting lots that could benefit from its construction. 2. The right-of-way width is only 30 feet wide. The minimum right-of-way width required is 60 feet. 3. The city has no intention to build Curve Street. Approval of this vacation shall be subject to the city retaining an easement for utility purposes over, under and across all that part of vacated Curve Street adjacent to Block 6, GLADSTONE, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies Southerly of the Westerly extension of a line drawn parallel with and 20.00 feet Northerly of the South line of Lot 1 of said Block 6, and which lies Northerly of the Westerly extension of a line drawn parallel with and 10.00 feet Southerly of the North line of Lot 2 of said Block 6, GLADSTONE. Adopted by the Maplewood City Council on ,1996. 13.