08-19-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in a situation where the building is of a certain size and requires a certain number of parking stalls, but does not have enough site area to provide those parking stalls. Schmitz asked if the parking situation affects the retail businesses or is the parking used by employees. Mattila stated that, according to the applicant, the parking in the front of the building is insufficient for clients. They need at least four more stalls in front of the building so clients do not have to go down behind the building. Knuth commented the variance should be approved. Motion by Baker, seconded by O’Brien, V-314 TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF BECAUSE UNIQUE ,, CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CREATE A HARDSHIP DO NOT EXIST BUT ARE DUE TO OVERBUILDING OF THE SITE PC. AND THE LANNING OMMISSION IS MINDFUL OF SETTING A PRECEDENT 5 Ayes - 1 Nays (Knuth). Motion Carried. LP-327/NC-108/VN-315/PL-236 Nutec Construction Mattila outlined the case report concerning a request for site plan review, nonconforming use permit, setback variance, and a minor subdivision, to construct a two-story office building on an existing commercial site. Baker pointed out discrepancies in the site plan and the landscape plans, which makes the plans meaningless. Schiferl asked about the landscaping. Mattila responded the applicant proposed three evergreens for the north side of the pond, which is being elongated to provide more space between the property line and the pond area itself. Mattila stated the City Forester has looked at the site, has talked to the property owners to the north and does have some concern about the impact of a pond on the roots of the nearby trees. The City Forester felt that elongating the pond would solve that problem. Schiferl asked if a 38-foot wide lot was buildable. Mattila stated first, he did not know if Ramsey County would allow a curb cut for a driveway on that lot. Mattila said second, the lot would have to be 75 feet wide to be a buildable lot. Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this proposal. Mary Lee Butcher, owner of the property to the north of the subject site, said she wanted to thank the applicants for their cooperation. Butcher stated she purchased her property because of the nearby trees. Butcher said she had expected a developer would build on the land at some point in the future. If the Planning Commission and the City Council approves the proposal, Butcher said she would be concerned about the value of her property. Butcher said she was concerned about the aesthetics of the pond. Butcher pointed out her concerns about the pond on both the original and the current site plans. The original pond fit nicely behind the four large trees on Butcher’s property. Butcher stated her home would look directly over the end of the elongated pond. Butcher said she was concerned about the looks of the pond. Butcher said she did not understand if the pond would always have water in it, if it would be shallow, or if it would only have water during heavy rains. Butcher said the length of the pond was her greatest concern. Baker asked about the invert coming out of the pond. Will the pond be dry? Ron Berneau, Nutec Construction, responded that they changed the pond because of Butcher’s concerns about her trees. They extended the pond to get more space between her property and her trees and the pond. The pond was elongated to accommodate Butcher’s concerns. Berneau stated the pond would be a dry pond and would provide drainage for the site. Berneau said they would use stone to beautify the pond. Berneau, said the proposed building covered about 15% of the lot. The NSP easement that runs through the property makes 3 I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\08-19-97.WPD