DRAFT MAPLE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION May 29, 2018

Transcription

1 DRAFT MAPLE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Maple Grove Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. on at the Maple Grove City Hall, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Chair Colson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ITEMS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA CONSENT ITEMS Planning Commission members present were Chair Larry Colson, Vice-Chair Chris Ayika, Lorie Klein, Craig Lamothe, Susan Lindeman, Estes Parker and Joe Piket. Present also were Karen Jaeger, City Council Liaison; Peter Vickerman, City Planner; and Scott Landsman, City Attorney. None. The following Consent Items were presented for the Commission s approval: MINUTES A. Regular Meeting May 14, 2018 Motion by Commissioner Ayika, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to approve the Consent Items as presented. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW OF THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM THEIR REGULAR None. Mr. Vickerman reviewed with the Commission what items the City Council approved that was given direction at the Planning Commission level.

2 Page 2 MEETING OF MAY 21, 2018 NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING THE SHOPPES AT ARBOR LAKES STREETSCAPE MODIFICATION PRISA ARBOR LAKE, LLC C/O CBRE ELM CREEK BOULEVARD PUD CONCEPT PLAN AMENDMENT DEMOLITION OF CENTER PARK AREA AND FILL IN THE AREA TO ADD ASPHALT AND 48 PARKING STALLS Mr. Vickerman stated the applicant is requesting a PUD Concept Stage Plan Amendment to modify the central pedestrian plaza into a two-way roadway with diagonal parking, sidewalks, street trees and other streetscape modifications. The applicant has submitted a detailed narrative explaining the rationale for the change but in brief, they have found the current arrangement not conducive to leasing the spaces around the pedestrian plaza area, and feel that having vehicular access through the site and adjacent parking will make the adjacent spaces more attractive to potential tenants. Staff notes that a similar shopping center in Woodbury (Woodbury Lakes) has the roadway and parking through the entire center similar to what is being proposed by the applicant. The plans do show a significant amount of streetscape elements including seating areas, fire pits, landscaping, decorative concrete, and decorative overhead lighting. They are also showing an option to have bollards placed in the road to restrict vehicular movement and hold events in this space. Summary: While the loss of the pedestrian space is unfortunate, staff recognizes the need for the applicant to make the center as attractive to retailers as possible. The proposal shows a number of excellent design features and ultimately the area will continue to be a very good-looking portion of the shopping center. As this moves into Development Stage level of detail, there will be some utility issues for the applicant to work out but many of these have been identified in preliminary meetings with the applicant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution approving the PUD Concept Stage Plan Amendment, for the Shoppes at Arbor Lakes Streetscape Modification, subject to the applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the

3 Page 3 memorandums from: following: 1. The City Planner, dated May 7, The Arbor Committee Staff Liaison, dated May 11, 2018 The applicant shall acknowledge that Park Dedication requirements are based on staff review and recommendation to the Park and Recreation Board and their subsequent Board Action. Board meetings are held on the third Thursday of each month. Discussion Commissioner Ayika asked if the site had an adequate amount of sidewalks. Mr. Vickerman reported this was the case and provided further comment on the sidewalk plan. Commissioner Lamothe questioned if the loss of the quasi-public space would create a loss of programming for this space. Mr. Vickerman deferred this question to the applicant. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Michael Landstad, Shoppes at Arbor Lakes representative, discussed the challenges he was facing from a visibility standpoint. He explained he was working to create convenience for his patrons. Commissioner Piket asked what the vacancy rate was for this retail area. Mr. Landstad apologized to the Commission and stated he did not have these numbers in front of him. He commented the enter center was approximately 80% occupied. Commissioner Ayika requested further information on the events planned for the open space. Mr. Landstad discussed the public events and fundraisers that have been held on the open space during the summer months. Chair Colson opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. The public was asked by Chair Colson if they had any comments to make regarding this application. No one wished to address the Commission.

4 Page 4 Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Ayika, to close the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Commissioner Lindeman stated she supported the request and believed the proposal was provide for a more efficient use of the space. Commissioner Piket agreed and encouraged the Commission to support its retailers noting this area of Maple Grove has struggled for a while. Motion by Commissioner Ayika, seconded by Commissioner Klein, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution approving the PUD Concept Stage Plan Amendment, for the Shoppes at Arbor Lakes Streetscape Modification, subject to the applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: following: 1. The City Planner, dated May 7, The Arbor Committee Staff Liaison, dated May 11, 2018 PUBLIC HEARING 6263 NATHAN LANE N IAE LEASING 6263 NATHAN The applicant shall acknowledge that Park Dedication requirements are based on staff review and recommendation to the Park and Recreation Board and their subsequent Board Action. Board meetings are held on the third Thursday of each month. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Mr. Vickerman stated the applicant is requesting a 5-foot front yard and 10-foot rear yard setback variance for the purpose of constructing a new single-family home with an attached two-car garage located at 6263 Nathan Lane N. The applicant is proposing a two-story home with an attached garage. The main floor is proposed to be 660 s.f. and the second floor is proposed to be approximately 1,020 s.f. (as they would

5 Page 5 LANE N VARIANCE OF 5 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD AND 10 FEET IN THE REAR YARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A NEW SINGLE- FAMILY HOME WITH AN ATTACHED TWO- CAR GARAGE build over the garage. They estimate approximately 620 s.f. in a finished basement for a total of 2,300 s.f. The applicant has provided images of a sample home to demonstrate the general style they are contemplating for this property. The property in question is 3,709 sq. ft. in size, 46 feet in width and 83 feet in length at the longest point. The property was platted in The applicant is proposing to have the front of the house face onto Nathan Lane with the garage in the back gaining access off of the alley. They are proposing permeable pavers for the driveway and have submitted a detail of the pavers. Variance analysis in City Code: In considering all requests for a variance, the planning commission and the city council serving as the board of adjustments and appeals shall make findings of fact that the proposed action complies with the requirements of Minn. Stats and any amendments thereto, which include, but are not limited to: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of city code and consistent with the comprehensive plan. b. Variances may only be permitted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance, meaning the property owner proposes to use the lot or parcel in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code. c. The plight of the property owner must be due to circumstances that are unique to the lot or parcel and is not created by the property owner. Code describes these unique circumstances as one the following: a. Narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific parcel of property or a lot existing and of record on September 30, 1976; b. Exceptional topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel of land or lot; or c. An existing significant tree or tree stand which would be affected by a structure other than a

6 Page 6 building. For purposes of this subsection, the phrase "significant tree or tree stand" shall mean a tree having a diameter at breast height of at least 12 inches or a clustering of trees averaging eight inches in diameter, excluding tree diameters of four inches or less in such average calculations. d. The variances must not alter the essential character of the locality. Code describes not altering the essential character as not doing the following: a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. b. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets. c. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. d. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood, or in any way be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Analysis of Code Language: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of city code on consistent with the comprehensive plan. Although the house and garage would be closer than current setbacks, 20-foot setback in the front and the back have been used in other areas. The 20-foot setback for the garage allows parking that will not impeded the adjacent alley. The site is a buildable lot per code and is guided residential and building a home with an attached garage is in harmony with the code and comprehensive plan. b. The owner does appear to have practical difficulties and is proposing to use the lot in a reasonable manner. The lot is buildable and guided for single family homes and the owner is proposing to use the lot in that manner. c. The property is unique in that it was platted almost 100 years ago and is very small compared to today s standards. It is narrow and shallow and was created before September 30, The current land owner did not create the circumstances requiring a variance. d. With regard to altering the essential character, there are

7 Page 7 numerous smaller than standard lots with homes built on them and there are numerous homes in the area that are as close or much closer to the front and rear property lines than this home is proposed to be. We note that it appears almost every home on the east side of Nathan Lane on this block does not meet the standard 25-foot front yard setback and many of the homes along the alley do not meet the 30 rear yard setback. From the information that staff has on hand, the 1 st floor footprint of 660 s.f. of this home is smaller than most of the homes in the area. The overall size might be larger due to the second floor and finished basements. Impervious Surface: Staff notes that the applicant is meeting the 30% limit for impervious surfaces by utilizing permeable pavers for the driveway. Staff notes that as with setbacks, many existing homes do not meet the code standards for impervious surfaces but this proposal will. This is especially critical in a shoreland area and staff notes that permeable pavers add extra costs for the applicant. T-zone: This site is also in a Tree Preservation Overlay District. There are three significant trees on the site (defined as 8 inches or more in diameter. They are proposing to remove the 20-inch boxelder on the site and possibly the 12-inch boxelder near the alley. The 12- inch boxelder along Nathan Lane is proposed to remain. For this proposal, Section sub. (3) a. applies which requires replacement of ½ inch for every inch removed in the building pad but also credits 2 inches for every tree save in the building pad. Staff notes that the arborist who conducted the tree survey has an expired license but were comfortable with the work due to the very small number of trees on the site. Due to the size of the property, the entire property is considered the building pad and so even if they remove 32 inches of trees (the 20 inch and one of the 12-inch trees), the replacement requirement of 16 inches (1/2 of 32) would be met by the credit of 24 inches (12x2) for the one tree remaining. Summary: Staff finds that the applicant meets the standards for granting a variance. The lot was created many years ago, well before any of the current code requirements were in place. They are meeting

8 Page 8 many code standards, including impervious surface and side setback standards that other homes in the area currently do not meet. The proposed front and rear setback reductions are consistent with other areas in the city and the resulting setbacks of 20-feet are more than many existing homes in the area have. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution Approving the Front Yard Setback Variance of 5 and a Rear Yard Setback Variance of 10 for 6263 Nathan Lane N for the purpose of constructing a single-family home with attached garage. Discussion Commissioner Lindeman asked if the proposed home would be significantly larger than the homes in this neighborhood. Mr. Vickerman commented this home would be larger than some, but not all. He discussed how the home sizes varied along the lake based on the age of the homes. Commissioner Piket questioned if there were other homes in the area that did not meet the City s setback requirements. Mr. Vickerman reported this was the case. Commissioner Ayika inquired if the existing homes that were not meeting City Code was due to a change in the code. Mr. Vickerman stated this was likely due to an absence of City Code requirements or review by the City. Commissioner Klein commented on an the Commission received from the neighbors. She indicated the neighbors were both claiming the proposed home was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding homes. She asked if the City agreed or disagreed with this statement. Mr. Vickerman commented the difference between the homes was the number of stories. He explained if the older homes had a second story added, the square footage would be more equal. He noted the first-floor foundation size of the proposed new home was similar to the existing homes. Chair Colson questioned if there was anything preventing the neighbors from adding a second story to their home. Mr. Vickerman stated there was nothing stopping these homeowners

9 Page 9 from adding a second story. He indicated they would have to approach the City with their request and it could be approved administratively. Commissioner Klein inquired if the proposed two-story home would impair the neighborhoods air and light. Mr. Vickerman commented the home was not requesting a variance for its height. Commissioner Ayika stated he did not believe having a second story on the proposed home would significantly change the environment of the neighborhood. Chair Colson asked if a conforming home could be built on this lot. Mr. Vickerman commented on the uniqueness of this lot and noted the limitations that were in place to construct a home with an attached garage. Commissioner Piket requested further information on what was occurring on the lot to the north. Mr. Vickerman explained this lot was tied to another lot. He indicated the plans for this lot were unknown. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Brian Beaufeaux, IAE Leasing, thanked staff for providing the Commission with a thorough report. He noted he was available to take comments or questions from the Commission. He reported if the variance were not supported by the City he would move forward with a 2½ story home, with a turned garage that met all City Code requirements. Commissioner Piket asked if it would be Mr. Beaufeaux s intent to sell the home. Mr. Beaufeaux stated this was his intent. Chair Colson opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. The public was asked by Chair Colson if they had any comments to make regarding this application. Jan Woodseth, 6254 Eagle Lake Drive, spoke on the behalf of the residents in her neighborhood. She explained she and her neighbors did not support the proposed home and believe it would look out of place next to the existing homes. She commented the proposed home did not fit into the character of the neighborhood.

10 Page 10 She presented the Commission with a petition with 25 signatures noting all who had sign were in opposition to the variance. She indicated she did not want to have a behemoth home in her neighborhood. She respectfully requested the proposed project be denied and that the voices of the residents be taken into consideration. Chair Colson asked if it was fair to consider the basement square footage when considering the size of the new home. Ms. Woodseth believed this was fair. Chair Colson questioned what should be done with this property. He noted many of the surrounding homes did not conform with City Code. Ms. Woodseth indicated her home was built in the 1930 s and did not conform. Chair Colson inquired if Ms. Woodseth would rather have a conforming odd shaped home on the lot, or a more normal shaped home that was non-conforming. Ms. Woodseth requested the home be smaller to keep in character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Ayika asked what Ms. Woodseth s biggest concerns were. He noted that a larger home on this lot would actually increase surrounding property values. Ms. Woodseth understood this to be the case but believed that a large home would not fit into the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Lamothe questioned if Nathan Lane had on street parking. Ms. Woodseth stated on street parking was allowed during specific hours of the day but was not allowed overnight. Commissioner Ayika inquired if the size or height of the building was under consideration by the Commission. Mr. Vickerman stated this was not the case. He reported the only variance being requested was from the front and rear yard setback. Commissioner Klein commented that when looking at the essential character of the neighborhood, she did not believe that the proposed five-foot setback would impact the neighborhood given the fact other homes in the area also did not comply with this setback. However, when looking at the proposed home, she did not believe this was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. City Attorney Landsman commented on how the Commission could define character of the neighborhood noting

11 Page 11 this definition was subject to change. He encouraged the Commission to consider the overall project and not just the front and rear yard setbacks. Commissioner Parker was of the opinion the request was in keeping with City Code and was consistent with the neighborhood. Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Piket, to close the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Lindeman, seconded by Commissioner Piket, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution Approving the Front Yard Setback Variance of 5 and a Rear Yard Setback Variance of 10 for 6263 Nathan Lane N for the purpose of constructing a single-family home with attached garage. Commissioner Piket stated when looking at just the setback, he believed all criteria have been meet. For this reason, he stated he would be offering his support to the request. Chair Colson agreed stating there were a number of homes in the neighborhood that were already violating the City s setback requirements. Commissioner Klein agreed but offered her sympathies to the neighbors. She believed that a large home on this lot would look out of place. Commissioner Lindeman commented that a 2 ½ story home would look even more out of place. She supported the proposed home noting only a slight variance was being requested. Commissioner Ayika discussed the size of the foundation for the proposed home and noted this was not so different from the neighboring homes. Commissioner Lamothe indicated he supported the request with some reservations. He explained he believed the proposed home was the better option when considering a 2½ story home could be built. He thanked the residents in attendance for coming forward and sharing their concerns with the Commission.

12 Page 12 Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. DISCUSSION ITEMS ADJOURNMENT There were no discussion items. Chair Colson adjourned the meeting at 7:59 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for June 11, 2018.