10b. McDonalds Wetland Setback Variance / ab
i
CITYOF
i , .4.
CHANHASSEN
F
..
, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
Action by City P'-',:t ato-
1 MEMORANDUM Endorse 1� Q.11*
Mod`n*,f.____.________
TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals De ,, -��t�_ o_
II
Date Su" ;T._ t - :: s lt
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
IIDATE: April 18, 1990 40_2 - 1,Q
SUBJ: Wetland Setback Variance for McDonalds
II
On April 4, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed a site plan for
II the expansion of the McDonalds site. The expansion includes an
addition to the restaurant and parking area. The Planning
Commission recommended approval with conditions and the City
Council will be reviewing the item on April 23rd (see attached
II report) . As part of the site plan, the applicant has shown a
wetland area to the southeast of the McDonalds site. The wetland
is a Class B wetland which is in poor condition and is located
II beyond any improvements or alterations to the site. The original
McDonalds site plan was approved prior to the wetland ordinance
being adopted by the city and the existing parking lot and most
easterly entrance is within 55 feet of the wetland. The wetland
II ordinance requires a setback of 75 feet. The proposed expansion
will increase the non-conformity by bringing the parking lot to
within 10 feet of the wetland (Attachment #1) . Therefore, the
IIapplicant must receive a variance to the 75 foot wetland setback.
II The City has been consistent with new developments in maintaining
the 75 foot setback from wetlands. When existing developments are
proposed to be expanded and existing variance conditions exist on
the site, staff, through the site plan process, will try to bring
II the site up to code as best possible. In this case, it is not
possible for the applicant to meet the 75 foot wetland setback in
that the existing eastern entrance would have to be eliminated to
maintain a 75 foot setback. Therefore, staff cannot recommend that
the site be brought into conformance since it would eliminate a
necessary entrance which would result in undue hardship.
The City is receiving benefits from the site improvements in the
form of additional landscaping throughout the site, removing on
street parking of trucks, redirecting contaminated parking lot
runoff from entering the wetland and providing a buffer between the
I
IIBoard of Adjustments and Appeals
April 18, 1990
II Page 2
wetland and site improvements. Another factor for consideration is
II the condition of the wetland. The wetland is small and of poor
quality. The lower portion of the wetland is being removed by the
city as part of Lake Drive East improvements. The wetland is
I bordered by a soon to be highly traveled road and commercial
property. Also, the city is looking at an overall storm water
management plan which would remove individual ponding areas on
every developed site. There is a large wetland area on the
II
DataSery site which will ultimately be used for storm water
drainage for the subject area. Therefore, with development of the
site to the east of McDonalds, the chances of the wetland remaining
I in its current state are not promising. Combining the current poor
state of the wetland and the benefits of the overall site
improvements to the wetland and city, staff is comfortable with the
Iexpansion of the parking area.
Staff feels increasing the encroachment into the wetland setback
from 55 feet to 10 feet is too extreme. Rather, staff feels a
II compromise should be made by requiring some of the parking stalls
to be removed. If three truck parking stalls are removed,
approximately the same setback from the wetland will be maintained
II (50 ' ) . Removing two truck parking stalls will result in a 37 '
setback from the wetland and removal of one truck parking stall
will result in a 25 ' setback from the wetland. Staff feels either
I two or three of the southerly truck parking stalls should be
removed to maintian an adequate setback, yet allow the applicant to
receive use of the parking lot expansion.
II As a note, staff has calculated the impervious surface of the site.
The district allows a maximum of 65% impervious surface coverage.
As proposed, the impervious coverage would be 66% and exceed the
II maximum allowed. By removing parking stalls the impervious surface
will be as follows:
II Removing
Parking Stalls Impervious Coverage Wetland Setback
1 64.3% 25'
2 62.5% 37 '
3 61% 50'
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Board of Adjustments should recommend approval of the variance
to the wetland setback, and as a condition of approval require
either 2 or 3 of the southerly truck parking stalls be removed from
the site plan.
I
Board of Adjustments and Appeals I
April 18, 1990
Page 3 ,
ATTACHMENTS '
1. Site Plan with Wetland Setback
2. Site Plan and Preliminary Plat Report
11 -i-'4:;', ... • x-±*.-. ',..,-:- ?,_. - .4,- - , •
‘ -- 'r•-• --- - o
I ]
.., 1 , .- 1•.#4,,,,,-- _ Seln ,--1. i k, , ,. 06, -
P.'. 1 l'... • 1,3"r1570:- ; .
:- r., -r Ill■•• %)/
lII
\.:4.*T..;'
_..-_- :,.--.
4 r 4:1 - ,•• \
. . / -I ' .
i " •
.„.
'11140ii .,.71.1
111 i- • / I ,, .
- /-
70
g 7. - , , ,
,
, )
, I• •, - -
I ,
,.-.1
„ .
1 -rt, , ri-
it? ...71 - :i f
a %1
r . / .ii r--
/ o., / /' . 1"
,I. 11 ‘
. - a -'6/°:<:,:
y, cl. Amiel..
s.-• • f• I ''
s, ,\ / ,:i.\
›d: -.,e,/ f ,-
...i ,. It
• glw.,.
....\- 0 _
/01 II
•N• ,40;\ ck • ‘
at\
•41
a
14!4_ . ./
. . .4
..---
11
.......
.1 ..
1 .
, ig .t 4,11,• R. _P-.4
.:::----- —
/
H.;
T
I . , 4%
• I
I ::::i
.:::
o> ...
o.
..2ts' -- ,,
I ,1‘
, , \ ■ I
• I '
,\s:4
P N \
‘ . 1
–N•\
lII 1 I
•
x
Z/„
A
\ f
aI
GW_V 11 rA
\ .,
. 1 .....,.:,
! I