Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waite Park planners hear fierce neighborhood objections to developer’s request to raise height and cut parking
Summary
At a public hearing, neighbors pressed the Waite Park Planning Commission to deny a developer’s request to raise allowable building height from 40 to up to 55 feet and reduce parking for a proposed ~66-unit senior apartment, citing wetlands, drainage, private‑drive impacts and loss of neighborhood character.
The Waite Park Planning Commission on Tuesday heard more than a dozen residents oppose a variance request from McMaredith Development to increase the allowable height of a planned multifamily building from 40 feet (three stories) to as much as 55 feet and to reduce parking requirements for roughly 66 senior-oriented units.
The commission opened a public hearing after city staff described the request as limited to two items — a maximum building height increase and a lower parking ratio — and noted the parcel is platted and zoned for multifamily use but the applicant seeks variances because on-site conditions limit typical underground parking and a more expansive footprint.
Why it matters: Staff said site features, including granite outcrops, high groundwater and wetland areas, constrain excavation and layout and that the proposed 1.75 stalls-per-unit parking ratio (about 115 stalls for 66 units) is lower than the standard 2.5 stalls per unit (about 165 stalls). Neighbors warned the reduced parking combined with taller buildings would increase runoff, traffic on a private drive and visual intrusion on adjacent single-family yards.
Residents’ objections centered on drainage, ecological and safety risks. Jean Dawandorf, who identified herself as owner of the adjacent Arrow Rock property, said the focus area is primarily wetland, that an on‑site stream drains roughly 1,500 acres to the south and that adding pavement and taller buildings would increase runoff and strain the stream. “If a project cannot meet the zoning codes height and parking standards due to site limitations, it’s a good indication that they’re trying to put too big a development in too small a space,” Dawandorf said.
Near neighbors repeatedly raised concerns about construction traffic and long‑term vehicular impacts where the developer intends to use a private drive for access. Brian Bennett and other residents said children play near the private drive and asked who would be responsible for road maintenance and for damage from heavy equipment. City staff replied the a private drive would remain privately maintained and any easement or maintenance arrangements between neighbors and the property owner would need to be resolved outside of the city’s public-maintenance responsibilities.
Developer response: Bob McManis of McMaredith Development and Regency Builders told the commission the firm intends a low‑profile, upscale senior building with interior amenities, a pond and landscaping. McManis said the actual roofline would likely be lower than the 55‑foot maximum requested — he estimated the design at about 49 feet — and defended a smaller parking footprint as a method of preserving trees and improving neighborhood aesthetics. “On a 55‑unit building, you don’t get very much traffic,” McManis said, adding that many senior residents do not drive regularly.
Technical details and trade-offs: Staff and the applicant agreed the same unit count could be achieved with a different roofline if the commission declined the height variance, though the applicant said topography and subsurface granite make underground parking and conventional layouts more expensive or impractical. Staff reported ongoing coordination with the city engineer and public works and confirmed final engineering would be addressed if the project advances.
Next steps: The planning commission will consider the testimony and render a recommendation to the City Council, which has final approval authority. Staff said if the commission issues a positive recommendation the item could proceed to the next council meeting; if tabled, it would appear at a subsequent meeting. No formal commission vote on the variance was recorded in the hearing portion of the transcript.
The record: The hearing included multiple residents speaking from Heritage Lane, Ashwood Court and nearby streets; their remarks stressed potential impacts to privacy, wildlife, drainage and neighborhood character. The applicant offered to meet with neighbors and review specific concerns about access, screening and construction staging.
