BUFFALO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. Meeting: Monday, March 12, 2018 Place: Buffalo City Center Time: 7:00 p.m.

Transcription

1 BUFFALO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Meeting: Monday, March 12, 2018 Place: Buffalo City Center Time: 7:00 p.m. 1. OPEN FORUM This is the time that residents or developers can bring items before the Planning Commission not yet scheduled for hearing or formal review by the Commission and not on the regular agenda. 2. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Click here for minutes. 3. AGENDA ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW The Planning Commission reviews what actions were taken by City Council at the previous meeting regarding the items from the agenda of the last meeting. - Steve Ganz, PUD Amendment, 1316, 1318, 1320, 1322, 1324, 1326, 1329, 1331, 1333, 1335, 1337, 1339 and 1341 Grandview Circle, PIDs , , , , , , , , , , , and Click Here for Excerpt from Council Minutes

2 Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARING PFEIFER MANAGEMENT, PUD, XXXX 6 TH AVE NE, PID Summary: Pfeifer Management has applied for a planned unit development to construct two eight-unit apartment buildings on the parcel with two accessory garage structures and surface parking. The applicant is seeking concept plan PUD approval. Click Here for Reports Click Here for Location Map 6. OTHER

3 Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2018 The Planning Commission of the City of Buffalo held a regular meeting in the City Center on the 12th day of February 2018 at 7:00 p.m., with the following members present: Tom Salkowski, Jameson Wakefield, Diane Bjorgum, Bridget Clemons, Steve Cullinan, Paul Olson, and Eric Anderson. Also in attendance were Stephen Grittman, Planning and Development Coordinator Jennifer Nash, and Videographer Quincy Kabe. OPEN FORUM No comments were received during this opportunity. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Cullinan, and seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. All in favor; motion carried. AGENDA ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS Chair Salkowski asked that staff update the Commission regarding the work the Council has commissioned to look at the housing section of the comprehensive plan. COUNCIL REVIEW Council Representative Anderson noted that the Council commended the Planning Commission on their work on discussing the zoning of Buffalo Pass in two meetings of discussion. Anderson noted the Council voted to rezone the property referred to as Buffalo Pass to R-3 with the findings of fact noted in the NAC Planning Report, File No , dated December 5, 2017 and the BMI Memorandum dated December 4, It is anticipated that the developer will bring a preliminary plat to the commission for consideration in the coming months. PUBLIC HEARING STEVE GANZ, PUD AMENDMENT, 1316, 1318, 1320, 1322, 1324, 1326, 1329, 1331, 1333, 1335, 1337, 1339 AND 1341 GRANDVIEW CIRCLE, PIDs , , , , , , , , , , , and Planner Grittman introduced this item. Steve Ganz is proposing a Planned Unit Development Amendment to the Grandview PUD. The proposed amendment would allow for construction of eight (8) detached townhomes within parcels originally platted for thirteen (13) attached townhomes. The property is in an existing PUD in an underlying R-4 Townhouse, Quadraminium, Low Density Multi- Family district.

4 February 12, 2018 Grittman noted that the architecture of the proposed single family homes are planned to be similar style to the surrounding properties to be consistent in the neighborhood. The proposal includes adjusting utility connections and drainage plans to meet the needs of the new home placement. Salkowski asked Grittman to describe why the existing Grandview Circle is a private road. Grittman noted that it is not uncommon for developers to include more narrow private roads maintained by a homeowner s association as part of townhome projects in a PUD and this is the case with Grandview Circle. Salkowski asked if it would be possible to replat these parcels rather than doing metes and bounds descriptions. Grittman noted it would be possible but that it also may be possible to achieve the task by doing metes and bounds if the County approves. It was noted that replatting can become complicated within areas that are part of a larger homeowner s association. Olson asked about the recommendation of requiring an amendment to homeowner s association documents and Grittman noted this is so that the City can confirm that ongoing maintenance is taken care of. Applicant Steve Ganz noted he has discussed plans with the association and that the discussion has gone well. A motion was made by Olson, and seconded, to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment as noted in the NAC Memorandum, File No , dated February 6, 2018 and the BMI Memorandum dated February 6, All in favor; motion carried. HOUSING CHAPTER OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Planner Grittman noted that the Council has commissioned a study of market conditions and housing strategies that would ultimately be proposed as a comprehensive plan amendment. Grittman noted the Planning Commission, HRA and City Council are proposed to meet together to discuss housing goals and strategies. NAC will be doing data collection and analysis as well as other research in the meantime. Buffalo s market, as well as comparisons to other markets, will be analyzed as part of this work.

5 February 12, 2018 ADJOURN Commissioner Wakefield moved for adjournment at 7:31 p.m. The motion was seconded. All voted in favor; motion carried. Chairperson Planning and Development Coordinator Return to Agenda

6 EXCERPT FROM FEBRUARY 20, 2018 COUNCIL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MATTERS Steve Ganz, PUD Amendment, 1316, 1318, 1320, 1322, 1324, 1326, 1329, 1331, 1333, 1335, 1337, 1339 and 1341 Grandview Circle, PIDs , , , , , , , , , , , and Council member Anderson reviewed the Planning Commission s recommendation on the requested proposed amendment that would allow for construction of eight (8) detached townhomes within parcels originally platted for thirteen (13) attached townhomes. The property is in an existing PUD in an underlying R-4 Townhouse, Quadraminium, Low Density Multi-Family district. Upon motion Council member Anderson, motion seconded to approve the proposed amendment to the Grandview PUD as recommended in NAC Memorandum, File No , dated February 6, 2018 and the BMI Memorandum dated February 6, 2018, all members voting in favor, motion carried. Return to Agenda

7 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN Telephone: Website: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Buffalo Mayor and City Council Buffalo Planning Commission Stephen Grittman DATE: March 6, 2018 RE: Buffalo Multi-Family PUD - Pfeifer FILE NO: PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6 th Ave. NE PROPERTY PID#: Background and Analysis Kent Pfeifer of Pfeifer Property Management is seeking a concept review of a proposed Planned Unit Development project on a 40,033 square foot parcel along 6 th Avenue NE. The project consists of two 8-unit apartment buildings, a total of 16 units. The property is zoned R-6, Multiple Family Residential. The applicant has provided a site plan with landscaping and utility information on the plan, along with building elevations and floor plans in support of the proposal. Grading and drainage information is not included in the submittal. The R-6 multiple family zoning requirements for this site include a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, a maximum density of one unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area, and impervious surface maximum of 75%. The recent changes to the zoning ordinance incorporated a higher impervious threshold for those areas of the City that were already subdivided under the previous ordinances. By comparison, the R-5 district which also allows multiple family housing, requires at least a 2 acre lot size and an impervious surface maximum of 35%, with significantly greater requirements for open space and setbacks.

8 With regard to setbacks, the R-6 District requires 30 feet front and rear yards, and 15 feet side yards. The applicant is seeking flexibility to accommodate 25 foot front and rear yards, and a setback to the south property line of 10 feet for one of the apartment buildings and the garage structure. The other side setback (north) would be just over 34 feet. Surrounding land uses are as follows: North A three lot cluster of about 40,000 square feet with one single family home and outbuildings zoned R-6 East - Townhouses - zoned R-4 South - A single family home on a parcel of approximately 50,000 square feet zoned R-6 West - Evergreen Square multiple family residential zoned R-6 The applicant is seeking PUD flexibility to accommodate the following departures from base zoning requirements: a. Two principal buildings on one parcel. b. Reduced setbacks of 25 feet front and rear (rather than required 30 feet). c. Reduced setback to the south side (10 feet rather than required15 feet). The applicant supports his request by noting that the density could be met by constructing a single larger building without pushing the setbacks, requiring only a building permit. However, he notes that the two smaller buildings have a softer impact on the surrounding uses, and he has had success with tenant retention in the smaller buildings, as opposed to larger single structures. With regard to the setback changes, the applicant suggests that the front and rear setbacks could be met, but he is seeking approval of this small departure to accommodate greater drive-aisle for access to the garages. The minimum driveway width requirement would be 24 feet, and the applicant s site plan shows a width of 30.5 feet in both drive aisles. While it would be possible to lower the drive aisle width and meet the setbacks, it would appear that the relatively small deviation in setback could be mitigated with increased landscaping, and the easier turning movements for the parking areas is beneficial. The other setback deviation is to the south property line, where the applicant proposes a setback of 10 feet for the west residential building, 10 feet for the middle garage building, and 15 feet for the east residential building. As noted above, the required setback is 15 feet. The applicant supports this request by noting that the driveway along the north side of the property is separated from the building wall by about 8.7 feet. This is intended to accommodate the requirement for a small utility sprinkler room on the north end of each building. This results in shifting the west residential building to the south 5 feet to allow room for this structure.

9 The applicant has designed the buildings to have hipped rooflines facing the adjoining property, lessening the impact of the nearer structure somewhat. It is not clear from the materials, however, if there might be another location for the sprinkler rooms that would minimize the impact on setbacks including recessing all or a portion of the sprinkler room into the main building. It appears from the floor plans that the master bedrooms would be impacted by this concept. If not practical, staff would suggest that additional landscaping along the boundary line some tree planting rather than just shrub and perennials would soften the impact of the encroachment. For Planned Unit Development, the City is required to find that the proposed project overall does a better job of achieving the City s land use goals than a project that meets only the basic zoning standards. In this case, the applicant suggests that a single building conforming to the R-6 standards one building meeting the standards setbacks - could be designed so as to avoid the PUD request. However, he further suggests that the deviations from R-6 zoning result in a superior project, namely, the smaller building massing and profiles, and the additional space for vehicle maneuvering in the parking/drive aisle areas. Staff believes that the PUD is potentially warranted in this case, with the suggestion that additional landscaping is added to each of the yards in which the setback is being reduced, and that the applicant consider and discuss alternative locations for the sprinkler rooms which appear to be raising the primary side setback conflict. One final comment would relate to waste handling on the site. The plan does not illustrate a dumpster location, and there are areas along 6 th Street NE where remote garbage can storage is an issue. A common garbage collection area, screened and accessible, would be recommended for the final PUD plan set. Summary and Recommendation As a concept PUD, the applicant is seeking City comment related to the use of PUD for this site, and potential issues that the applicant should consider for redesign as a part of a development stage/final stage PUD submission. The concept PUD review is advisory, not binding, but is important to identify threshold issues for final PUD consideration. Staff believes that the smaller building profile is a positive on this site, considering the lower density uses in the area. However, splitting the project into two buildings appears to raise the setback and circulation issues which the applicant s plan illustrates. If the project proceeds to development/final stage PUD consideration, staff would suggest that additional overstory tree planting be added to each of the yard areas affected by the setback reduction, and that the applicant include a common trash enclosure area on the plan.

10 Finally, as noted, the applicant should address the potential for alternatives to the sprinkler room issue which appears to be the cause of the reduced setback on the south line of the property. pc: Merton Auger Laureen Bodin Justin Kannas Metro West Inspections Pfeifer Property Management

11 MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor Lachermeier, Members of the City Council and Members of the Planning Commission Buffalo, Minnesota From: Justin L. Kannas, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Subject: Pfeifer 6 th Ave NE Apartment Building Buffalo, Minnesota BMI Project No: Buffalo General PID I have reviewed the concept plan dated 2/14/18 and Planned Unit Development application for the proposed Pfeifer Apartment building along 6 th Ave NE. and have the following comments: 1) The applicant shall submit grading, drainage, erosion control, utility and parking lot plans and a storm water management plan plan for review and approval prior to the approval of the building permit application. 2) The storm water management plan shall show the project meeting all City of Buffalo storm water management requirements including but not limited to: no increase in the rate of runoff and a net reduction in the volume, total suspended solids and total phosphorous from the pre-project conditions. 3) The existing water service and sanitary sewer service shall be abandoned at the mains as directed by the City Engineer. 4) The plans shall be subject to review and comment by the City of Buffalo Fire Chief. 5) Retaining wall plans that are signed by a registered engineer shall be submitted for review and approval as part of the building permit process. 6) The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits including but not limited to MDH watermain permit, City of Buffalo right of way permit, and Department of Labor and Industry permit. I recommend approval of the PUD contingent upon the above comments and comments as submitted by other City staff. JLK/jk cc: Merton Auger, City Administrator, City of Buffalo Laureen Bodin, Assistant City Administrator, City of Buffalo Jennifer Nash, Planning & Development Coordinator, City of Buffalo Steve Grittman, City Planner, NAC h:\buff\_general\planning reports - misc\pfeifer apt bldg 6th ave ne \ pfeifer 6th ave apts pcmemo.doc.docx

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 Return to Agenda

20 Return to Agenda