Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/1996BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16, 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. September 3, 1996 4. Approval of Agenda o o Public Headngs a. Good Samaritan Nursing Home Expansion - 550 Roselawn Avenue Land Use Plan Change Zoning Map Change Conditional Use Permit New Business a. Wetland Setback Variance - General Sprinkler Corporation (County Road D) 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. September 9 Council Meeting: Ms. Brueggeman b. September 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Kopesky 9. Staff Presentations 10. 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 t830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairman Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lester Axdahl Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman Commissioner Barbara Ericson Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Commissioner Dave Kopesky Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present III. APPROVALOF MINUTES Commissioner Frost moved approval of the minutes of August 19, 1996, as submitted. Commissioner Kittridge seconded. Ayes-Brueggeman, Ericson, Frost, Kittridge, Kopesky, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson Abstentions-Axdahl The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Kopesky moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING Ao Land Use Plan Changc East of Arcade Street, North of Keller Parkway Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commissioners. Chairperson Axdahl opened the public hearing for comments from the public. Evelyn Regnier, owner of the property, said the property will be developed if not bought now by the city. John Gores, 2870 Arcade Street North, was concerned about the status of a driveway easement he has which goes over the read easement and extends out to Arcade Street. Ken Haider, city engineer, said if this land was purchased for open space, the city could not use the land in conflict with the easement agreement. The Goreses would be afforded uninterrupted access. Jolene Gores, 2870 Arcade Street North, added that they expected this land to be developed when they bought their adjoining lot two years ago. She now feels it would be best for the habitat to leave it as open space. There were no further comments, so the public · hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-03-96 -2- Commissioner Rossbach asked about the property to the north. Norma Shapira, 2910 Arcade Street in Little Canada, spoke about the triangular property that adjoins the Regnier property on two sides. She said this is owned by a Mr. Richie who also owns a parcel to the north in Little Canada. Mr. Roberts said one of the reasons for the road easement, when the lot was divided in 1994, was to provide access to the triangular piece of land owned by Mr. Richie. Commissioner Kopesky moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution which changes the land use plan for the undeveloped area east of Arcade Street and north and west of Kohlman Lane. The change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to OS (open space). The city should make this change because: 1. Maplewood plans to buy this site for open space. 2. The purchase would help preserve a variety of natural features on and near this site, (including Ramsey County open space) including wetlands, slopes and trees. 3. The property is a good economic value. 4. The site could provide year-round recreational opportunities. 5. There has been neighborhood interest in preserving the site. 6. Ramsey County owns several acres in the area for open space. The city shall not make the land use plan change for the city-owned property until after the city closes on the property. Commissioner Brueggeman seconded. Commissioner Rossbach said he was inclined to vote against the motion for three reasons: (1) the house at 2870 Arcade Street would be surrounded by open space with public access on the driveway, (2) a fair portion of the land would be preserved anyway because of its weltand status, and (3) the gravel driveway/mad easement dividing the property. Commissioner Kopesky favored the open space purchase because it only involved $78,000 and the county already owned adjacent open space land. Ayes-Axdahl, Brueggeman, Kopesky, Frost Nays-Kittddge, Rossbach, Pearson, Ericson, Thompson The motion failed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Hazelwood Forest Preliminary Plat (County Road C) Ken Roberts, associate planner, gave the staff report. Ken Adolph, consulting engineer with Schoell and Madson, was present representing Maplewood Development, the developer. Mr. Adolph showed an additional plan that depicted a 60-65 foot width of trees on the east side of the Ramsey County trail, with an additional 10-25 feet of trees retained within the plat on this side, and a 10-50 foot width of trees on the east side of the plat. The existing trees and Planning Commission Minutes of 09-03-96 -3- vegetation would remain around the 25-foot wetland buffer strip. The first six lots on the east side of the plat have been changed from walk-out to look-out lots. Mr. Adolph added that on at least six lots the proposed grade matches the existing grade so, depending on the location of trees, some additional trees might be kept. Commissioner Rossbach said he was encouraged by the modifications to the plat presented by the developer. He thought there was a possibility to preserve more area on the western side of the plat. Mr. Rossbach reviewed the suggestions that he presented in his memorandum of August 27, 1996, a copy of which was given to all commissioners and the applicant. Commissioner Frost felt it was not the position of the planning commission to redesign this plat for the developer. Commissioner Rossbach agreed with Mr. Frost, but asked the commission to send a recommendation to the city council that included some of his thoughts. Commissioner Pearson agreed with both Mr. Frost and Mr. Rossbach. Commissioner Pearson moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Hazelwood Forest preliminary plat (received by the city on August 26, 1996). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing, silt fence and signs at the grading limits. Co Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cuffing, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. d. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. Have NSP install street lights in two locations; near the intersection of County Road C and Barclay Street and at the end of Barclay Street that ends in a cul-de-sac. The exact location and type of lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. Provide all required and necessary easements. Obtain the necessary approval from the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority for putting the sanitary sewer across their property and for any grading or storm sewer work on their property. g. Remove all junk, scrap metal, debris, and the shed. h. Cap and seal all wells on site; remove septic systems or drainfields. i. Remove the existing curb cut on County Road C, repair the street and sod the boulevard. .11r Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail and street plans. The plans shall .meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-03-96 b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contours for each home site. (2) Include contour information for the land that the street construction will disturb. (3) Show sedimentation basins as required by the watershed board or city. (4) Show housing styles and grading where the developer can save large trees. c.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. Construct an eight-foot-wide paved walkway and fencing between Lots 9 and 10 from Barclay Street to the Ramsey County Regional trail. The developer also shall provide a fence on both sides of the trail and shall install posts at each end of the trail to prevent cars or trucks from using the trail. The developer or contractor shall build the entire trail and any required fencing with the street and before the city council approves the final plat. The city engineer must approve these plans. Maplewood is requiring the developer to pay for the trail within the plat since the trail will provide access to the Ramsey County trail to the residents of the new plat. Provide wetland easements over the wetlands on site. The easements shall cover the wetlands and any land within 25 feet surrounding the wetlands. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within 25 feet of the wetlands or any mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping within 25 feet of the wetlands or within the wetlands. The purpose of the easements is to protect the water quality of the wetlands from fertilizer, runoff and to protect the wetland habitat from encroachment. Show the wetland boundaries on the plat as delineated on the site or within 100 feet of the site. A trained and qualified person must delineate the wetlands. This person shall prepare a wetland delineation report. The developer shall submit this wetland information to the Watershed District office. The Watershed District must approve this information before the city approves a final plat. If needed, the developer shall change the grading plans and plat to meet Maplewood's wetland regulations. 5. Record a covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits driveways on Lots 1 and 20 from going onto County Road C. 6. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading and any wetland filling. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-03-96 -5- If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Kittridge seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend consideration of design options to this plat, specifically: (1) make some changes to the plat to widen and enhance the corridor along the west side of the property, (2) work with the natural lay of the land, (3) look for opportunities to maintain as many trees and other vegetation, as possible, throughout the plat, and (4) include a covenant with the lots on the west side of the road to prohibit future owners from clearing the property. Two examples of ways to achieve this would be: (1) move the roadbed to the east, and (2) possibly allow for a narrower roadbed. The thrust of the recommendation would be to slightly shift the development of the plat to the east, thus allowing and preserving a larger natural area on the western side of the plat. Commissioner Frost seconded. Commissioner Kittridge asked if the city could impose covenants or if they are made by the developer. Mr. Roberts said they are typicallY made by the developer, but the city might impose one if there was a life-safety or health/welfare (i.e. drainage) concern. Mr. Roberts cautioned that having a developer enforce a covenant for city wishes was precarious. Commissioner Kittridge asked if Mr. Rossbach would accept a friendly amendment to the motion that would encourage the developer to institute a covenant rather than the city. Ayes-Axdahl, Ericson, Frost, Kittridge, Kopesky, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson Nays-Brueggeman The motion passed. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Heartland Industries Shed Sales Conditional Use Permit--Highway 61 Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commissioners. Larry Stark, of Heartland Industries, had no problem with the recommendation, but said they do sell garages in addition to storage sheds. Commission Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for the outdoor display and sale of yard sheds and garages on the old Mapleleaf Drive-in property on the west side of Highway 61. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-03-96 -6- 2. 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. 4. If there is not enough parking, the operator or property owner shall provide more spaces. The city staff must approve a plan before paving begins. 5. The operator shall keep the lawn mowed on this site. 6. The number of sheds shall not exceed the number shown on the site plan. 7. Provide a portable bathroom on site for customers and sales persons. Commissioner Kittridge seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. Billiard Parlor--Crown Plaza (1700 Rice Street): Conditional Use Permit and Billiard Parlor License Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. He answered questions from the commissioners. John Alexis, the applicant, was present. Mr. Alexis spoke about some of the problems he has encountered in a similar operation he has in Bloomington. He said identification will be required of all patrons and this will be either photostated or entered into a computer. Mr. Alexis said they eventually hope to have food service and serve 3.2 beer. He also preferred to operate until 2 a.m. and will request that in the future. Commissioner Thompson gave some background information on the neighborhood and mentioned incidents that have happened in the area. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: Ao Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for a billiards parlor in the Crown Plaza Shopping Center at 1700 Rice Street, The zoning ordinance requires a conditional use permit since this use would be a place of amusement or recreation in a BC (business commercial) zoning district. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the floor plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed use 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 owner or operator shall get a billiard parlor license from the city clerk's office before opening the business and each year. 4. The owner or operator shall meet all the requirements of Section 6-106 through Section 6-119 of the city code (about billiard parlors and poolrooms). 5. The hours of operation shall be from 8 a.m. to 1 a.m. Monday through Saturday and 12 noon to 1 a.m. Sundays. VIII. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-03-96 -7- 6. The owner or operator shall not allow any form of gambling. 7. The facility shall not have more than 42 billiard tables, ten video or arcade games and four dart games. 8. There shall not be any liquor sold, distributed or allowed on the premises. 9. Tournaments shall be limited to one local toumament per week and no more than six Minnesota Pocket Billiard Tournaments per year. 10. The owner or operator shall sweep and maintain the parking lot before the billiard parlor opens and then regularly or as is needed. 11. Food service and food items shall be limited to prepackaged items, soda, water and coffee ddnks and other similar non-alcoholic beverages. All food-service and beverage equipment shall be approved by the Environmental Health Officer. 12. The city council shall review this permit in June 1997. Approve a billiards parlor license for Mr. John Alexis to operate a billiard parlor in Suite A in the Crown Plaza Shopping Center (1770 Rice Street). This license shall be subject to the operator or owner meeting all conditions of the conditional use permit and meeting all city licensing requirements. Commissioner Brueggeman seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Brueggeman, Ericson, Frost, Kittridge, Kopesky, Pearson, Rossbach Nays-Thompson The motion passed. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS August 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost reported on this meeting. September 9 Council Meeting: Ms. Brueggeman will attend this meeting. Commissioner Rossbach said he thought the commission should look at the potential of trying to find a way to force developers to view their development area differently. He felt the developers often are not representing the interests of either the city or the current residents. Commissioner Frost agreed and suggested that the city should revise the current tree preservation ordinance. Commissioner Thompson commented on the police record for the billiard parlor in Bloomington owned by John Alexis. The commission discussed police calls. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-03-96 Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. -8- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Good Samaritan Nursing Home Expansion 550 Roselawn Avenue September 11, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description The Maplewood Good Samaritan Center is proposing to expand their facility onto the property to the west - 530 Roselawn Avenue. This property now has a vacant single dwelling on it. (See the maps on pages 11 and 12.) Good Samaritan has already bought this property. Currently the nursing home has 80% of its residents living in three-bedroom rooms. The expansion is to reduce the number of beds from 162 to 140 and create all double or single bedrooms (68 doubles and 4 singles). As proposed, the 11,561-square-foot addition would be brick to match the existing building. The applicant also would add a nine-car parking lot in the northwest comer of the property next to the proposed addition. (See the site plan on page 12.) Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following items: 1. A land use plan change from R-1 (single dwelling) to R-3H (multiple dwellings - high density). (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 9 and 10.) 2. A rezoning from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-3 (multiple dwelling residential). (See the property line zoning map on page 11 .) 3. A conditional use permit (CUP) for the expansion of a nursing home. The city code requires the council to approve a CUP for a nursing home in the R-3 zoning district. 4. The building and site plans. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change and Rezoning The city council should approve the proposed land use plan and zoning changes. As proposed, the addition and site expansion would be attractive. The nursing home is not a disruptive use and is a good neighbor. After this project, the nursing home would reduce their population from 162 to 140 residents. This by itself would lessen the potential activity at the Good Samaritan Center. The number of employees would stay the same, so there is no potential for extra employee activity. The addition would, therefore, fit into this neighborhood. Some neighbors wanted better screening around the site and improved drainage control in the rear parking lot. The applicant already had a contractor install a new six-foOt-tall, board-on-board screening fence around the side and rear lot lines. They also would be installing an improved storm water control pond in the southwest comer of the existing parking lot. This was the city engineer's requirement to improve the handling of storm water to keep it from washing over the curb during severe storms. These changes would make the expanded use of the nursing home a compatible addition to the neighborhood. Conditional Uae Permit The city council should approve the CUP for this project since the proposed expansion would meet the code criteda for a CUP. The Good Samaritan Center has been a good neighbor and a compatible use with the surrounding neighborhood. (See their letter on pages 14 and 15.) Site Considerations Parkint:i The Maplewood Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Committee reviewed this proposal. They recommended that the nursing home move the parking spaces to the east side of the proposed parking lot. The committee's goal is to keep handicap-accessible spaces next to sidewalks. When possible, parking lot designs should not require disabled persons to cross traffic lanes. Staff is recommending that the applicant revise the site plan to reverse the parking layout. Screenin,q The six-foot-tall wooden fence that the nursing home had installed does a good job of screening the site from the neighbors. In addition, the nursing home will add a six-foot-tall screening fence along the west side of the site with the project. Neighbor's Concerns Two neighbors expressed concem that the addition would cause their property values to drop. The Ramsay County Tax Assessors office told me that there is no evidence that this would happen. The new screening fence would provide a nicer buffer between the nursing home and the abutting neighbors. Traffic and Ambulance Runs Some neighbors were concemed about an increase in traffic. Since the number of residents will lessen, this should not be an issue. It is true that there would be a new parking lot in the northwest comer of the property. However, this parking lot would have only nine parking spaces and thus would not generate much traffic. There also should be fewer ambulance runs after the addition because of the smaller population of residents. Storm Water Runoff The city engineer's plan for a small storm water holding area in the southwest comer of the existing parking lot should relieve the occasional overflow problem now occurring. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on page 19. This resolution changes the land use plan designation for the property at 530 Roselawn Avenue from R-1 (single dwelling) to R-3H (multiple dwelling - High Density). The city bases this approval for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. 2. It would be consistent with the property planned for R-3H to the east. 3. The proposed plan would increase the project site and reduce the population in the nursing home thus reducing the overall project density. Bo Adopt the resolution on page 20. This resolution changes the zoning map for the property at 530 Roselawn Avenue from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-3 (multiple dwelling residential). The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. Co Adopt the resolution on pages 21 and 22. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for the expansion of a nursing home at 550 Roselawn Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and 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 substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Do Approve the plans (stamped July 25, 1996) for the expansion of the Good Samaritan Center at 550 Roselawn Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code. The property owner shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the City Engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall be meet all ordinance requirements. b. Revise the site plan to place the nine parking spaces in the proposed parking lot next to the side walk. c. Revise the landscape plan to substitute all proposed seed with sod. All screening fencing shall be board-on-board to be at least 80% opaque (code requirement). 3 Complete the following before occupying the building: a. b. Co do Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Install reflectorized stop signs at both exits onto Roselawn Avenue. Install handicap- parking signs for each handicap-parking space. Screen any roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property on the addition (code requirement). Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system. 4. 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. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. 4 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed owners of the 42 properties within 350 feet of Good Samaritan's property and the proposed expansion site. Of the 20 replies, ten were in favor, two objected, seven had no comment end one neighbor submitted comments (stating neither for or against): In Favor 1. It is a positive addition to the area and is necessa~j. (Forest Lawn Memorial Park, 1800 Edgerton Street) 2. Good for the community. (Kortus, 1930 Edgerton Street) I am in favor only if they follow through and put up the six-foot-tall wood fence. This would help with privacy. I think the construction will be very beneficial otherwise to the care center and Maplewood and am in favor of it. Also, the current drainage system off the parking lot, etc, is very inadequate, big rains or thaws cause rivers of water to wash down into peoples backyards. This was discussed at a neighborhood meeting with Good Samaritan. Do you know if it has been looked into? (Thompson, 565 Bellwood Avenue) 4. I would like to see a new fence - at least six feet tall. (Hurd, 523 Bellwood Avenue) o My grandpa was there and any improvements are appreciated. Also, we live on the east side of the nursing home. If they ever want to expand our way all the way to Edgerton, we would consider for the right price. (Kramer, 1855 Edgerton Street) 6. They're a good neighbor and with aging of Amedca we need - more Good Samaritan Centers. 0Nillenbring, 556 Bellwood Avenue) 7. Please have them remove that dirty cottonwood. It has been there for 40 years. (Boland, 521 Roselawn Avenue) ~ 8. The center has been a good neighbor. Our only complaint with the center is their garbage hauler slamming the dumpster at 5 a.m. (Lewis, 1889 Edgerton Street) Opposed 1. Refer to the letter on page 16. (Conway, 515 Roselawn Avenue) 2. Refer to the letter on page 17. (Powers, 510 Roselawn Avenue) Comments (did not state whether for or against) Refer to the letter on page 18. (Schoenecker, 529 Bellwood Avenue) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.6 acres Existing land use: Good Samaritan Nursing Home and a single dwelling SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Roselawn Avenue, single dwellings and Edgerton Elementary School South: Single dwellings West: Single dwellings East: Single dwellings PAST ACTION August 6, 1964: The city council rezoned the Good Samaritan site to R-3. February 15, 1973: The council approved a site plan change for a 45-space parking lot. August 6, 1973: The council approved plans to expand the building. October 18, 1979: The council approved a parking lot expansion behind 530 Roselawn Avenue. July 8, 1985: The council approved a 7.5 front setback variance for a sunroom addition. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (existing); R-3 (proposed) Zoning: R-1 (existing); R-3 (proposed) Ordinance requirements Section 36-108(b)(3) requires a CUP for a nursing home in a R-3 district. Section 36-448 requires a CUP to enlarge or expand a use that requires a CUP. Section 36-28(c)(9) requires that the applicant install and maintain an underground lawn irrigation system. The city council may waive this requirement on a case-by-case basis, provided a suitable alternative to underground irrigation has been secured by the developer. To waive this requirement, the installation of such system must be found to be prohibitive and difficult due to terrain or other factors, or be unnecessary due to alternative irrigation provisions or xeriscape arrangements which do not require irrigation. Land Use Plan Change - Criteria to Approve The land use plan does not list any specific findings to amend the land use plan maps. The plan lists developmental goals and policies, however. The intent of these are to create harmonious neighborhoods that are aesthetic, orderly and minimize conflicts between adjacent land uses. Rezoning - Criteria to Approve Section 36-485 of the zoning ordinance requires that the city council determine four findings to approve a rezoning. Refer to these findings listed in the resolution on page 20. Conditional Use Permit- Criteria to Approve Section 36-442(a) requires that the city council determine specific findings to grant a CUP. Refer to these findings listed in the resolution on pages 21 and 22. p:sec17\goodsam.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map :2. Land Use Plan Map (Existing) 3. Land Use Plan Map (Proposed) 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Site Plan 6. Applicant's Rezoning Justification 7. Applicant's CUP Justification 8. Letter from Kenneth Conway 9. Letter from Dan Powers 10. Letter from Michael Schoenecker 11. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 12. Rezoning Resolution 13. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 14. Project Plans dated July 25, 1996 (Separate Attachment) Attachment 1 LOCATION MAP 8 N /I Attachment 2 0S 05 1 " 'LarPenfeur major arterial ,- lnte >, c ~ E R-2 o R-3(H) :~ ~ ~ = IM) II Canad Attachm~n% 3 0S IlS I 'Larpenf'eur major arterial inte le>, c UJ E ~ R-2 . o R-31 R-3(H) :2 ~ ~ [M) ?.~,o ag. EDGERTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Attachment 4 C~) ;{~1938 500 510 GOOD SAMARITAN%~ 18ss 529 549 539..-~.--. 5~?* 1889 188!, F FOREST LAWN CEMETERY 512 522 ! ST. PAUL CEMETERY PLAT A PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP PROPOSE? REZONING FROM F (FARM RESIDENTIAL) TO R3 (MULTIPLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL) Attachment 5 I~OiELAWN AVENUE EXISTING BUILDING EXIETING RECEIVING AREA SITE PLAN 12  ~0~ Attachment 6 ~_zm~m~.~ Maplewood Good Samaritan Center ,v'~ IS $~ Rezoning Application Filing Requirements 2. a. How would this zonin,q chan,qe promote public welfare by: (1) Reducing traffic congestion? Traffic would not be increased at this site, in 'fact, it should be decreased due to the reduction in the number of nursing home residents from 162 to 140. Also, with the addition of another small parking lot off Roselawn, traffic will be split in two locations. (2) Improving safety from fire and other dangers? Safety will be greatly enhanced for the residents of this care center. The entire existing building and the new addition will be completely sprinklered. (3) Providing adequate light and open space? The proposed rezoning project and the new building will meet city landscaping and lighting requirements. (4) Avoiding overcrowding? This project will not increase the number of residents in this nursing home. (5) Conserving property values? Rezoning and subsequent expansion should not change property values. ~re or detra from the use of n~aracter of the nei hborhood? Rezoning only effects one adjacent lot to the west of the nursing home. The existing nursing home lot should not change and therefore will not detract from the lots that already surround the nursing home. 3. See the attached list of property owners within 350 feet of the nursing home. 4. The application fee is also attached, 550 East ,Reselawn Avenue · St. Paul, MN 55117-2099 Phone: 6121774-9765 13 .~ Maplewood Good Samaritan Center 'Attachment 7 Conditional use or PUD Application Filing Requirements 2. Statement describin,q the intended use of the property and why this request should be approved. Maplewood Good Samaritan Center intends to use the property at 530 Roselawn to build an addition to the nursing home currently located at 550 Roselawn. The addition will have twelve resident rooms and the required space including, dining room, day room, and nurses station, etc.. Improved resident therapy area, staff area and beauty shop will also be included Currently the nursing home has 80% of the residents living in three-bed rooms. The proposed addition will reduce the number of licensed nursing home beds from 162 to 140 and create all double or single bedrooms. This will be a tremendous improvement in the quality of life for the residents of Maplewood Good Samaritan Center, and greatly enhance the service this nursing home has provided to the residents' of the City of Maplewood for more than thirty years. In response to the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit on 13a.cle ,3 and 4 of the application: 1. Yes, 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. We feel the use would not change the existing character of the surrounding area. 3. In our opinion the use would not depreciate property values. 4. VVhen completed, the use will 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 run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 550 East Rc~,elawn Avenue · St~ Paul, MN 55117-2099 Phone:. 612/774-9765 14 Maplewood Good Samaritan Center '~£ IS 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not ~reate traffic ~ongestion or unsafe a~.,ess on existing streets. 6. We feel the use would be adequately served by public facilities and services. 7. There should be no additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. There will be minimal, if any, adverse environmental effects. 3. See the attached list of property owners Within 350 feet of the nursing home. 4. The application fee is also attached. 550 East I~J~aWn Avenue · St~ Paul, MN 55117-2099 Phone: 612~774-9765 15 Attachment 9 17 .~Attachment 10 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION Attachment 11 WHEREAS, The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society applied for a change to the city's land use plan from R-1 (single dwellings) to RH (residential high density). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at 530 Roselawn Avenue. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On September 16, 1996, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. 2. On ,1996, the city council discussed the land use plan changes. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described changes for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. 2. It would be consistent with the property planned for R-3H to the east.. 3. The proposed plan would increase the project site and reduce the population in the nursing home thus reducing the overall project density. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996. 3.9 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE Attachment 12 WHEREAS, The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society applied for a change in the zoning map from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3 (multiple-dwelling residential). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at 530 Roselawn Avenue. The legal description is: The South 97 feet of the North 330 feet of the East 300 feet of the West 475 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; and The East 300 feet Of the West 475 feet of the North 233 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; and The South 100 feet of the North 330 feet of the West 175 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; and The North 230 feet of the West 175 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter all in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On September 16, 1996 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the change. On ,1996, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. 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 change in the zoning map for the following reasons: The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The applicant is proposing to develop the site with a nursing home expansion. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996. 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION .Attachment 13 WHEREAS, The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the expansion of the Good Samaritan Nursing Home at 530-550 Roselawn Avenue. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 530-550 Roselawn Avenue. The legal description is: The South 97 feet of the North 330 feet of the East 300 feet of the West 475 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; and The East 300 feet of the West 475 feet of the North 233 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; and The South 100 feet of the North 330 feet of the west 175 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; and The North 230 feet of the West 175 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter all in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 16, 1996 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On ,1996, 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 ~bove-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 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. 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 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. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996. 22 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager James Edcson - Planning Intern Wetland Buffer Variance - General Sprinkler Corporation County Road D, East of Highway 61 September 11, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Frank Winiecki, of General Sprinkler Corporation, is proposing to build a 12,000-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 10 feet to 50 feet. Mr. Winiecki, therefore, is asking for a variance of up to 90 feet in reduced buffer width. Please see Mr. Winiecki's letter on pages 9 -11 and the site plan date- stamped September 4, 1996 (separate attachment). The city code requires the wetland buffer to protect the adjacent wetland surrounding this site. The Ramsey-Washington Metro Distdct 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 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 request. The planning commission recommended that the city council deny the wetland-protection buffer setback variance. Refer to the planning commission minutes beginning on page 12. DISCUSSION Mr. Winiecki's revised site plan varies considerably from the previous site plan dated June 27, 1996. The revised plan reduces the building area from 14,784 square feet to 12,000 square feet. The applicant has reoriented the proposed building from the northern edge of the property parallel to County Road D to be parallel to the western property line, facing northeast. While this revised site plan is an improvement from the previous site plan, there still are significant problems. The revised plan shows landscaping and plantings covering as much as 90 feet of the wetland buffer. The wetland protection ordinance considers these as ground disturbances. Wetland buffers are to be undisturbed areas. In addition, the proposed plan does not show a storm water pond. Mr. Winiecki has made several alterations on his plan as described in his letter dated 9-3-96 (see pages 9-11). However, the revised plan does not sufficiently address or resolve the main issue of the wetland setback and buffering. The proposed undisturbed wetland buffer would still be excessively narrow and contrary to 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. The proposed plan is not serving these needs. City staff also had the Ramsey/Washington Watershed District review the proposed site plan. They also had several concerns about the current proposal. (Please see their memo dated September 11, 1996 on page 14.) 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 determined 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. The land next to the wetland on Mr. Winiecki's site is in its natural state and has not been disturbed. 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. Based on this and because of 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 developer or applicant met the 100-foot wetland buffer requirement. Staff realizes that the city council may need to grant a variance for this site to develop. City staff cannot say what we would recommend as the maximum variance that the city should allow on this site. This would depend on the nature of the specific proposal and what method(s) of wetland protection the applicant would propose. RECOMMENDATION Deny the proposed wetland-protection buffer reduction variance for the proposed General Sprinkler building on County Road D (plan date-stamped September 4, 1996). The city should deny this variance because: 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 vadance 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 propedy as a wetland buffer. The quality of the existing buffer on the Lexus site had been seriously damaged over time. The proposal offers little protection 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: South: West: East: County Road D and 1-694 Undeveloped property Two single dwellings Northern States Power substation PAST ACTION Februar~ 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 · 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, 4 "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.3rd Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Une/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Letter dated September 3, 1996 5. Planning Commission Minutes, July 15, 1996 6. 9-11-96 memo from Watershed District 7. Site Plan date-stamped September 4, 1996 (separate attachment) 5 Attachment COUNTY RD. D 2 COUNTRYV~EW C~R. 3. DULUTH CT. 8EA~ A~. ED~EHh. L ~D. ROAD RADAT~ ~ p.A~SE'v COU~FY COURT KOHLMA~ LOCATION MAP 6 Attachment 2 VADNAIS HEIGHTS 1O® 3110 3090 m~Re-m~{~ COUNTY. ROAD D 1320 ]322 , I- ~--~.. t~- ...... ~~~-- .'." / r~ BACKYARD ~' BUILDING ~,' SYSTEMS ~.~ ~//1 ~ //~ LEXUS M1 7 Attachment 3 EDGE OF THE REQUIRED 100-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER COUNTY ROAD D BUILDING ASPHALT PARKING ' AREA WETLAND EDGE WETLAND EDGE 8 Attachment 4 Page 2 of 4 September 3, 1996 COUNTY DITCH ~ 18 This ditch parallels the west property line of the property. It is a deep ditch of running water that is 8 to 10 feet below the top of the bank east of the ditch. A metal culvert under County Road "D" transports water from north of "D" to the ditch. The watershed district does not consider Tract "A" registered land survey # $25 east of the ditch as wetlands. ~ETLANDS There are no wetlands on the land tract. Wetlands delineation off the property vary from 10 to 80 feet southeast and parallel to the south property line. REVISIONS The attached site development plan has been totally revised since my previous site development submittal. The building size has been reduced to 12,000 s.f. This represents a building pad that covers only 15~ of the 1.79 acre tract. The building length runs parallel to the west property line and County Ditch # 18. An existing wooded and grass area will now be on the rear of the building toward the drainage ditch. This area will be maintained as a water run off soaking area for the building roof and parking area· Access to'the rear of the building in not needed. All service doors and overhead doors will now be on one wall facing northeast. The building angular corner is moved forward to a roof overhang of 20'0" from the east west County Road "D" property line. Grass and tree planting areas have been increased to compliment the southern wetlands off the property. 9 Page 3 of 4 September 3, 1996 e. The asphalt surface area has been reduced. VARtANC5 All property on the north side of County Road "D" from Highway 61 to the county walkway is state owned. Development is highly unlikely. The property east of Tract "A" is owned by NSP and is a substation. The property west of Tract "A" is privately owned. Due to the angular property lines about the southeast corner of "D" and Highway 61 any future development on this corner should not be affected by this reduced Tract "A" frontal set back. A variance in front set bank is requested from 30'0" to 20'0" to the roof overhang. Due to the angular position of the building the southeast building corner will be approximately 95'0" from the delineated wetlands line. The southwest building corner will be approximately 110'0". A variance of approximately 15'0" is necessary at the southeast building corner to the delineated wetlands. A 37'0" new grass and maple trees area is proposed parallel to the south property line. The intent is to improve the esthetic effect of the property as viewed from 1-694 and County Road "D". An improved buffer of new trees and maintained grass all on the property will shield the dead standing trees, fallen trees and brush from view. A variance is necessary to install this new grass and tree area. The east property line contains six parking stalls. An existing adjacent 60'0" strip of land is wooded level and owned by NSP. An east ditch parallels the NSP property· The level land and existing wooded grass area is considerably above the southern wetlands. 10 Page 4 of 4 September 3, 1996 This area should not be considered as wetlands as it is high and dry with a substation truck traffic road adjacent to the ditch. SUMMARY Tract "A" development as re-submitted offers a new approach to reasonable and responsible land use. The proposed building angular location on the property is unique compared to normal front street facing buildings, Because of the angular position, almost 60 degrees to the to the front street, all building access will be from the northeast side of the building. Positioning of the building, parking, landscaping and tree planting will provide for a pleasant looking development, a functional land use and an improvement to the local tax base compared to its present use. I believe that the variances requested are consistent with good practise considering the unusual shape of the property and adjacent land conditions. Sincerely, Frank H. Viniecki President Attachment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISS!ON t830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA JULY 15, 1996 'r V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Wetland Setback Variance, 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 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 vadance area. Five feet of this parking area would be part of the berm. Mr. Winiecki also responded to Patrick Conrad's (of the Ramsay- 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. Lacktodn said he sold land south and east of this property within the last two years to the Ramsay-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 Ramsay-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 u~disturbed and functions properly as a wetland buffer. The quality of the existing buffer on the Lexus site had been seriously damaged over time. 12 Planning Commission Minutes of 07-15-96 -2- 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 pristine wetland situation. He asked about the intrusion on personal property rights. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, compared this request to the wetland setback variance given to the Lexus car dealership at 3000 Maplewood Drive North. She said Lexus had a hydrologist, wetland specialist, end 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. 13 Ramsey-Washington Metro MEMO September 11, 1996 TO: Ken Roberts Maplewood Community Development FROM: Cliff Aichinger, Administrator · Attachment 6 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN $5t09 (612) 777-3665 fax (612) 777-6307 District Review of General Sprinkler corpOration Site Plan on County Road D, East of Highway 61 At your request, we have reviewed the latest plan from General Sprinkler Corporation for development of the Tract A Registered Land Survey 525. In general, it appears that the site plan does not recognize the intent of the no disturb buffer zone. The plan indicates grading and new grass being planted up to the easterly and southerly property lines. Pat Conrad, District Technician, delineated the wetland edge for the applicant. The plan doesn't indicate if these flags were surveyed, so I'm not sure of their location on the project plan sheet. Pat 'also delineated the wetland line on the west side of the property adjacent to the county ditch. This line appears to be properly located on the plan. The other major concern is that there appears to be no hardship pre~nted. The proposed use of the site shows an extremely large asphalt yard and a small building. It appears that a building could be sited on the property within the proposed wetland buffer requirements and comply with the ordinance. The large parking area and asphalt yard is impossible to site on this property without infringing on the proposed buffer area. It does not apl>ear as though the proposer understands the purpose of the wetland buffer -- a no disturbance zone. After talking with him on sevend occasions, he seems to think that if he plants grass and trees up to the property edge it complies with the ordinance. In this case, he shows disturbing the entire site except for the bank to the counW ditch. That clearly is not the intent of the buffer protection. 14 10 39~,:1 ,]i,iHi','~,:l L O ::_ '3 ..' L .Z C Ii '_q TO :0l '3E, E,T..."TI:."E, 0