08-19-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

development of the lot difficult. Berneau stated he felt Nutec had come up with a plan that provides for the future of the Ken’s Market property and a pleasing building on the site. Baker stated he was also concerned about the pond. The code requires a buffer between a B-2 use and an R-1 use. Baker said a five-foot deep stone pond was not a landscape buffer and would create a hazard because of its depth. Baker stated there is no room on the site for snow storage. After the owner puts in the handicap parking, the parking will be inadequate. Berneau said the site had room for three handicap parking stalls. The density of the building is less than allowed. The pond itself would not be unsightly and can be beautified. Knuth stated she felt the pond is effective and would be very attractive. PH. Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schiferl, 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Carried. Schiferl stated no hardship exists here that would warrant granting of the setback variance. The proposal may be workable if the R-1 lot were rezoned. Baker said he questioned the attractiveness of the pond when it is full of the runoff from the parking lot. Baker stated such a pond does not belong next to a single family home. O’Brien commented left turns from County Road D could greatly influence the traffic flow on County Road D and said he was concerned about the curb cut being so close to the I-35W ramp. Mattila said he asked Dan Soler, Ramsey County Public Works, about the curb cut and Soler stated the curb cut was acceptable to Ramsey County. Baker stated the site plan provided to the Planning Commission was inadequate. Baker said the Planning Commission should continue the hearing to next month so the applicant can provide a correct landscape and parking plan. Berneau said they were not short parking stalls and the site had room for the handicap parking. Berneau stated they needed to make very little modification to the plans to justify denying the proposal. Baker pointed out the trees shown on the landscape plan would not fit on the site plan. Berneau responded that would be a minor adjustment that they could work out with the City Forester. LP-327,NC-108,PL-236, Motion by Schiferl, seconded by O’Brien, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF AND VN-315 variance. BECAUSE NO HARDSHIP OR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTS FOR APPROVAL OF THE Livingston asked if the Commission could deny VN-315 and approve the other parts of the proposal. Baker responded negatively. Baker said he did not have a problem with the variance, but the overuse of the site. Knuth commented, according to the applicant, the land use meets all existing codes and is not overused. Knuth asked Mattila if the proposal meets existing codes. Mattila responded affirmatively except for the setback variance request and the handicap parking issue. They could solve the parking issue relatively easily. The setback variance reduces the greenspace by 25 feet. Baker pointed out there is no landscape buffer to the R-1 area. Livingston stated plans have enough parking spaces, but not enough handicap places. Could they widen a parking space to meet the handicap requirements? Mattila said they needed 55 parking spaces. The applicant would have to make two of the nine-foot wide spaces twelve feet wide. Livingston said he favored approving the variance. Baker called for a vote on the motion. 3 Ayes - 3 Nays. Motion Failed. 4 I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\08-19-97.WPD