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 Planning Commission members present were Chair Larry Colson, Vice-Chair Chris Ayika, and Tony Marick. Absent was Craig Lamothe (excused). Dick Edwards, Community Development Director; Peter Vickerman, City Planner; and Scott Landsman, City Attorney. None. CONSENT ITEMS The following Consent Items were presented for the Commission s approval: MINUTES A. Regular Meeting April 13, 2015 Motion by Commissioner Ayika, seconded by Commissioner Marick, to approve the Consent Items as presented. Upon call of the motion by Chair Larry Colson, there were three ayes and no nays. Motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW OF THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM None. Mr. Edwards reviewed with the Commission what items the City Council approved that was given direction at the Planning Commission level.
Page 2 THEIR REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 4, 2015 NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING EAGLE LAKE SHORES THIRD EXEMPLAR, INC. 7080 AND 7090 TRENTON LANE PUD CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND EAGLE LAKE SHORES THIRD TO CONSTRUCT 3 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS AND TO AMEND EAGLE LAKE SHORES SECOND BY ELIMINATING 2 TWIN HOME UNITS Motion by Commissioner Marick, seconded by Commissioner Ayika, to remove this item from the table. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were three ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Mr. Edwards stated the applicant seeks approval of residential Planned Unit Development ---Concept and Development Stage Plan amendment for the purpose of creating a 3-unit neighborhood consisting of three single-family residential dwelling units. Consideration of this requires an amendment to the Second addition of the same development to replat the area. This site has considered multiple building densities and arrangements since about 2005, ranging from 4 to 7 units and none of these have come to fruition. The upland areas of the site are bounded by floodplain and wetland areas and each reiteration of the plan has had to contend with the physical challenges of the site and the complexities of the Shoreland Ordinance. The submittal being considered now is the least challenging. This site has approximately 1.95 acres (net) above all the aforementioned regulated features. The small wooded upland area does not exhibit much topographical relief. The woods are not part of the Tree Preservation District. The two inland units are accessed via side-by-side driveways with turn-arounds. The use of private drives has been considered and approved in the past on similar proposals on this site. The proposed residence on Lot 3 has direct access to and from Trenton Lane. Naturally, all of the water features play a significant role in the design of this site. The Shoreland District requirements alone place extraordinary challenges on the site, and the applicant has amended the plan a number of times to respond to requirements pertaining to shoreland district setbacks, density calculations (beyond even those per the Land Use Plan), maximum impervious coverage, building height, open space. The lots in this development average about 28,000 square feet and exceed the requirements of the Shoreland District. There are no proposed wetland or floodplain
Page 3 alterations. Mr. Edwards noted a water concern of the resident to the north and commented on a pipe being installed as part of this development to address water accumulation on the resident s property. The architecture of the single-family buildings will be at the discretion of the builder. This project does not fall under the domain of the Project Points System. It should be pointed that in the 1980 s a single-family development plan with 10 lots was approved with all lots having access directly to Trenton Lane (this plat was never filed). Subsequent utility improvements have been made for the benefit of this site with the anticipation that residential development ultimately would occur and the site has been assessed accordingly. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution approving the 1.) Concept and, 2.) Development Stage Plan--Planned Unit Development of Eagle Lake Shores Third, consisting of: The establishment of the PUD The Shoreland Impact Plan (comprised of all documents); The Preliminary Plat of Eagle Lake Shores Third All related documents Subject to the applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining comments contained in memorandums from the Assistant City Engineer, Community Development Director and the Superintendent of Parks and Planning dated April 10, April 10 and April 28, 2015, respectively. The applicant shall also perform to the satisfaction of the City by the acquisition and provision of the following: The applicant will be required to execute a Planned Unit Development Agreement for Eagle Lake Shores Third. Documentation of the HOA covenants regarding deed restrictions, permanent easements or equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure longterm preservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include the prohibition of vegetation
Page 4 and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance and the prohibition of additional buildings not consistent with code or storage of vehicles. Said covenants shall also address and place the responsibility of maintenance of the described swale on the HOA. 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 Marick asked if the driveway and setback concerns have been satisfied. Mr. Edwards reported that all setback concerns have been met. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Marjorie Holsten, 9601 Annapolis Lane, thanked staff for the thorough report. She requested that the Commission support the three proposed single-family detached lots. Chair Colson opened the public hearing at 7:10 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. Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Marick, to close the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were three ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Marick, seconded by Commissioner Ayika, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution approving the 1.) Concept and, 2.) Development Stage Plan--Planned Unit Development of Eagle Lake Shores Third, consisting of: The establishment of the PUD The Shoreland Impact Plan (comprised of all documents); The Preliminary Plat of Eagle Lake Shores Third All related documents Subject to the applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining comments contained in memorandums from the
Page 5 Assistant City Engineer, Community Development Director and the Superintendent of Parks and Planning dated April 10, April 10 and April 28, 2015, respectively. The applicant shall also perform to the satisfaction of the City by the acquisition and provision of the following: The applicant will be required to execute a Planned Unit Development Agreement for Eagle Lake Shores Third. Documentation of the HOA covenants regarding deed restrictions, permanent easements or equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long-term preservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include the prohibition of vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance and the prohibition of additional buildings not consistent with code or storage of vehicles. Said covenants shall also address and place the responsibility of maintenance of the described swale on the HOA. 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 three ayes and no nays. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING LASKOW VARIANCE LEONARD LASKOW 18000 75 TH AVENUE N REAR YARD SETBACK Mr. Vickerman stated the applicant is requesting a variance of approximately 7 feet in order to convert an existing deck into a 3- season porch. The property abuts a wetland and so the rear yard setback is measured from the edge of the wetland buffer. The rear yard setback can be reduced to 20 feet instead of the standard 30 feet because of the wetland. The existing house is approximately 23 feet from the wetland buffer and the existing deck is approximately 13 feet from the wetland buffer at their respective closest points. Per the Zoning Code, section 36-7 subd (c)(3) the following are not considered encroachments on yard setback requirements:
Page 6 VARIANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A SCREENED IN PORCH ON THE EXISTING DECK In rear yards, recreational and laundry drying equipment, arbors and trellises, balconies, breezeways, open porches, detached outdoor living rooms, detached garages, and air conditioning or heating equipment and permitted outdoor storage. Decks, described above as an open porch, are thus allowed in the rear yard setback. Covered porches, whether 3-season or 4-season are not listed as allowed in this setback area and are not allowed. Staff has consistently enforced this provision throughout the years and have not approved conversions of decks into 3-season or 4- season porches if the deck was in the setback area. Per the Zoning Code Sec. 36-121 regarding the approval of a variance, the code offers the following guidance for the review and approval of Variance requests: (2) 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. 462.357 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. d. The variances must not alter the essential character of the locality. (3) Circumstances are "unique" under subsection (a)(2)c. above to a lot or parcel for one of the following reasons: a. Narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific parcel of property or a lot existing and of record on September 30, 1976;
Page 7 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 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. (4) Not altering the essential character of the locality under subsection (a)(2)d. above shall mean the proposed action will not, among other things: 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 STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff offers the following analysis based on the code language above: 1. General Purpose and Intent of the Code : Staff feels the proposed variance falls short of this measure as the general purpose and intent of the code is to have buildings setback at least 20 feet from the edge of wetland buffers. The variance would allow the building to extend into this setback area. 2. Practical Difficulties & Reasonable Manner : The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The practical difficulties are that the existing house is built very close to the setback line, limiting any options for additions. 3. Uniqueness of the Lot : Staff does not find that lot is unique based on the three items listed under (3). The lot was created recently and the home was built with the current setbacks in place. Staff sees nothing different from this situation to the same situation that many other home owners in the city have faced in the past and been told that a
Page 8 conversion of a deck to a porch would not be allowed. 4. Essential Character of Locality : The proposed porch would not greatly alter the essential character of the locality. Based on staff s analysis that there is nothing specifically unique about this property that is different from other properties in the past where decks have been built into setback areas, staff cannot support the proposed variance request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution Denying the variance of approximately 7 feet for the purpose of allowing the construction of a screened in porch on the existing deck. Discussion Commissioner Ayika requested further information on the front yard setbacks. Mr. Vickerman explained there was a 20-foot setback to the garage and 15 feet to the building. He noted that this home had a 20-foot setback. Chair Colson asked if the applicant was the original owner of the home. Mr. Vickerman believed this was the case. Chair Colson questioned if the wetland setbacks were regulated by other agencies. Mr. Vickerman discussed the setbacks around the wetland noting there were both City and watershed requirements. He anticipated that most agencies required a 30-foot setback. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Leonard Laskow, 18000 75 th Avenue N, explained he was the original owner of the house. He presented the Commission with a written statement and reviewed the location of his lot within the Four Season development. He understood that his lot was small and shallow, but stated he has always been interested in adding a screened in porch over his deck. This option was even discussed with the builder when his home was constructed. He explained that he abutted a wetland, which made the enjoyment of his deck during the summer months difficult due to pest insects. He discussed a buffer on his lot noting he was requesting only a three-foot variance and not a seven-foot variance. It was his opinion that the proposed screening would offer him some privacy from the adjacent tennis courts. Mr. Laskow did not believe that the screen porch would degrade the neighborhood in any way. He discussed the differences between a
Page 9 covered deck and a screened tent, and reported he was allowed to have a screened in porch in Arden Hills. He requested the Commission support the proposed variance and allow him to construct a screened in porch on his existing deck. He noted that his neighbor fully supports his screened in porch. Commissioner Marick requested further information on the buffer. Mr. Laskow commented that the original setback includes a 10-foot buffer between the wetland edge and his property line. This impacted the west side of his property and the buffer was no longer parallel with the remainder of the wetland. Commissioner Ayika believed that the concern was not how the City defined the screened in porch on the existing deck, but rather that the covered deck would be within the rear yard setback. He stated that if the homeowner had discussed the covered deck with the builder originally, the home location may have been adjusted to allow for the amenity. Chair Colson asked if the covered deck would have been allowed when the building was constructed. Mr. Vickerman stated the covered deck would not have been allowed as it was within the rear yard setback. Commissioner Marick questioned if the City differentiated between a gable or flat roof. Mr. Vickerman stated the City did not differentiate between rooflines, but rather viewed the screened porch as a structure that was permanently attached to the house. Chair Colson opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. The public was asked by Chair Colson if they had any comments to make regarding this application. Marlene Gualtieri, 7662 Queensland Lane N, indicated she lived on the other side of the wetland from Mr. Laskow. She discussed the numerous building restrictions that were in place when Mr. Laskow s unit was constructed. She reported that numerous units have since screened in their deck due to the bug situation near the wetlands. She believed this was a unique lot, due to its size and for this reason, she encouraged the Commission to support the variance request, as it was an aesthetically pleasing option. Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Marick, to close the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were three ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Mr. Laskow encouraged the Commission to keep an open mind to his variance request and not simply deny the request carte blanche.
Page 10 Commissioner Ayika asked when the wetland delineation was completed. Mr. Vickerman reported that the wetland delineation was completed when the property was developed. He discussed how the buffer follows the line of the wetland. Chair Colson questioned if the applicant was requesting a three or seven foot variance. Mr. Vickerman stated he measured a sevenfoot variance based on the survey of the site. He commented that wetlands do change and the size could have increased or decreased. Commissioner Marick inquired if the area below the deck could be screened. Mr. Vickerman indicated a building permit would not be required for this type of screening. However, if windows were added a permit would be required. Commissioner Marick asked if the pool and tennis courts were in place when Mr. Laskow built his home. Mr. Vickerman noted that both amenities were in place prior to Mr. Laskow building his home. Chair Colson asked if the Commission was interested in reviewing the City standard for rear yard setbacks abutting wetlands. Commissioner Marick supported the City Code language as written. Motion by Commissioner Marick, seconded by Commissioner Ayika, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution Denying the variance of approximately 7 feet for the purpose of allowing the construction of a screened in porch on the existing deck. Commissioner Ayika appreciated the applicant s presentation this evening. However, he believed that City Code requirements were not being met in order for a variance to be approved. City Attorney Landsman advised that the rationale presented does not justify the variance. In addition, the wetland setback and buffer zone assists in protecting the wetland area. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were three ayes and no nays. Motion carried. DISCUSSION ITEMS ADJOURNMENT There were no discussion items. Chair Larry Colson adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for June 8, 2015.