Planning Commission

MAPLE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2020 CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Maple Grove Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. on February 24, 2020 at the Maple Grove City Hall, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Vice- Chair Ayika called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Planning Commission members present were Vice- Chair Chris Ayika, Lorie Klein, Craig Lamothe, Chuck Lenthe, Susan Lindeman, and Joe Piket. Absent was Chair Larry Colson excused). Present also were Karen Jaeger, City Council Liaison; Peter Vickerman, Planning Manager; Jesse Corrow, Associate Planner; Assistant City Engineer Jupe Hale; and Scott Landsman, City Attorney. OATH OF OFFICE City Council Liaison Jaeger administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Planning Commissioner Chuck Lenthe. A round of applause was offered by all in attendance. ITEMS TO BE None. REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA CONSENT ITEMS The following Consent Items were presented for the Commission’ s approval: A. Regular Meeting – February 10, 2020 B. Minutes – Work Session – February 10, 2020 C. ZOTA Tree Preservation – TABLED to Monday, March 9, 2020, Planning Commission meeting City of Maple Grove Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for the purpose of amending City Code regarding Tree Preservation. D. KinderCare Child Care – TABLED to Monday, March 9, 2020, Planning Commission meeting EIG14T KCE 302003 MN Maple Grove, LLC Outlot F, Southwest Crossroads  Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 2 PUD Non-Residential Development Stage Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat for the purpose of constructing a new approximate 11,990 square foot learning center and child care facility. Motion by Commissioner Lindeman, seconded by Commissioner Lenthe, to approve the Consent Items as presented. Upon call of the motion by Vice-Chair Ayika, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. CONSIDERATION None. OF ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW OF THE Mr. Vickerman reviewed with the Commission what items the City CITY COUNCIL Council approved that was given direction at the Planning Commission level. MINUTES FROM THEIR REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2020 NEW BUSINESS No items to present. OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING City Attorney Landsman reported Commissioner Klein would be recusing herself from discussing and voting on this item. ELM ROAD Motion by Commissioner __, seconded by Commissioner __, to ELM ROAD remove the item from the table. Upon call of the motion by SOUTH, INC. Vice- Chair Ayika, there were five ayes and no nays. Motion 16500 ELM RD, carried. 16300 ELM RD, Mr. Corrow stated this item was tabled at the previous planning 16301 ELM RD, commission meeting to allow staff and the applicant the 16501 ELM RD, opportunity to address the following concerns. ( 1) Compare lot densities and tree removal percentages of the nearby Creekside 16227 ELM RD, Estates development, ( 2) Provide an alternative plan that will not 16205 ELM RD, adversely affect forested areas on the adjacent Schroeder property, 16101 ELM RD, 3) Display how homes may be placed on irregular shaped lots 16601 ELM RD, without the need for future variances, and ( 4) Provide analysis of Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 3 16600 63RD AVE. how the Gilbert property may be affected as a result of a proposed nearby intersection. Please refer to the attached exhibits for supplemental illustrations. PUD RESIDENTIAL Creekside Estates Comparison: CONCEPT STAGE PLAN, Density Calculations DEVELOPMENT Elm Road Creekside Estates STAGE PLAN, 58.85 net acres 23.7 net acres REZONING 106 Lots 43 Lots AND 1.80 units per acre 1.81 units per acre PRELIMINARY T-Zone Overlay PLAT FOR THE Elm Road Creekside Estates PURPOSE OF 19 acres in T-Zone CONSTRUCTIN 10 acres in T-Zone ( 19 lots) 31 lots) G 106 SINGLE Avg. Lot Size = 21,961 sq. Avg. Lot Size = 20,312 sq. ft. ft. FAMILY 49.44% Tree Removal 49.5 % Tree Removal HOMES 52.63% Tree Removal w/ Periphery N/A with Periphery Trees* At the time Creekside Estates was approved, periphery tree removal was not factored as it is with the Elm Road project. The tree survey for Creekside Estates did not include trees at the edge of the grading limit that likely were impacted. Had the same standards been applied, it is likely that more trees would have been counted as “ removed” since the grading would have encroached periphery tree driplines. Schroeder Property Buffer: The applicant was asked to provide a buffer adjacent to the Schroeder property where no tree protective measures currently exist. As a result, the applicant is proposing to stop the road (and associated grading) short of the property line by 6 ½ feet. A 15- foot outlot will also be added to the area to the north of the new road ( lot 82) and will include a temporary no-grade protective easement. The area to the south of the new road ( lot 83) will include a 6 ½-foot temporary no-grade easement placed over it. The goal of these efforts is to preserve a transition area of trees and natural vegetation along the shared property line while continuing with the development of the bordering lots. The original site plan included grading and vegetation removal up to the property line. Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 4 Irregular Lots: The Planning Commission asked the applicant to display how building footprints will fit comfortably on certain lots within the proposed development. The applicant provided exhibits for the lots in question using house plans from one of their builders. On the north side of Elm Road, all lots will fit a 70-foot wide home, except for lots 69 & 70, which show a 64-foot wide home. On the south side of Elm Road, all of the lots fit at least a 60- foot wide home but many accommodate the wider 70-foot wide homes. The applicant does not anticipate future requests for setback variances. Gilbert Property: The Gilbert home is situated approximately 210-feet from the Elm Road right-of-way. The proposed intersecting road is just east of the Gilbert driveway on the south side of Elm Road. There appears to be adequate screening with the considerable tree cover along the south property line. Assuming future road grading is maintained within the existing road right-of-way, most of the screening will remain intact. Memo Regarding Elm Road Improvements: The Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer has provided a memorandum which outlines the planned improvements to Elm Road and how they relate to the proposed residential development. The memo acknowledges that while the two projects are certainly connected, the design and construction of Elm Road is a City-led project and is fully independent from the approval process of the residential development. The design process of Elm Road, which is in the very preliminary stages, will be actively communicated with the City Council and the public when preliminary designs are completed. The design schedule is unknown at this time, and is dependent on the timeline of the residential development approval. ORIGINAL STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting PUD Concept Stage Plan, Development Stage Plan, Preliminary Plat approval and Rezoning to R-2, PUD, for the purpose of developing property into 106 single-family detached residential lots, plus one amenity lot. Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 5 General Comments: The site is located on the north and south sides of Elm Road, west of Vicksburg Lane and east of Elm Creek, and is currently made up of nine R-A ( Single-Family Agricultural) zoned parcels ranging from 2.8 acres up to 20 acres in size. Existing homes and structures will be removed from the site prior to construction. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site into 106 single- family detached lots in two separate phases. Phase 1 would consist of 75 lots, plus one amenity lot, primarily on the eastern and northern portions of the site, while phase 2 is made up of 31 lots west of the first phase. The site plan also shows a non-contiguous parcel that will serve as temporary stormwater retention and treatment until future development occurs. Staff is working with the applicant on the placement of the treatment pond and a potential future roadway through this parcel. Density: The 60.48-acre site contains 1.63 acres of wetland for a net acreage of 58.85 giving the project a net density of 1.80 units per acre, meeting the Comprehensive Plan range for Low-Medium Density Residential of 1-3.5 units per acre. Site Plan: Development to the north will be serviced by a single road that will connect with two cul-de-sacs and terminate near the northern extent of the project. This terminus is intended, and will be designed, to connect with a future development to the west and will provide additional access to the neighborhood, as shown on the ghost plat. Many of the 45 lots that make up the northern half were designed much larger than the minimum requirements in order to preserve the heavily forested areas located in a Tree Preservation Overlay District. The developed area south of Elm Road will be accessed by three adequately spaced intersections that will lead to a series of connecting roads and a number of cul-de-sacs providing access to homes. Lot sizes in the southern half are generally smaller than those to the north of Elm Road, and some of which fall below R-2 standard lot requirements. Of the 62 proposed lots on the southern half, 15 are less than 80-feet wide and three lots are slightly less than 10,000 square feet in area. These concessions are offset by the overall number of larger lots proposed, the inclusion of the amenity lot ( on the southern half) and the developer’ s efforts to preserve the existing natural resources on the northern lots. Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 6 A small area of wetland impact is shown in the northern portion of the development and another area at the south-east of the project that will be impacted by Elm Road improvements. The total area of impacted wetlands appears to be less than ½ acre and a mitigation plan is being discussed with the Engineering Department. Master Plan/Ghost Plat: In May 2019, city staff collaborated with Gonyea Development to hold a public informational session focusing on development near Elm Road, the open house was followed by an informal presentation to the City Council. A conceptual plan, which detailed a proposal similar to this project, as well as possible future development, was provided. The open house was well attended by nearby property owners and the plan was generally well received by the City Council. Coinciding with the proposed residential project, Elm Road will undergo significant public improvements which includes re- alignment, grading, adding pavement, curb and gutters, and pedestrian facilities. Additionally, municipal sewer and water services will be extended to this area. The Parks and Recreation Department has also been involved in planning for future trail connections and access to the nearby Tree Preservation Area. Proposed trail connections are shown on a number of the outlots in the proposed plans. Tree Preservation Overlay District: There is an approximate 10-acre portion of the proposal located in a Tree Preservation Overlay Zone ( T-Zone). The T-Zone encompasses the entire northern “ arm” of the development and is also located directly adjacent to the city owned Tree Preservation Area. The applicant attended the Arbor Committee meeting on January 9th in order to discuss the provided tree survey and preservation plan. The Arbor Committee appreciates the applicant’ s efforts to preserve large areas of contiguous trees on the site as well as the forested areas that border the Tree Preservation Area. In addition, the applicant is proposing to place a conservation easement over 77.5% of the saved trees in order to further protect these trees from possible removal by future homeowners. Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 7 The Tree Preservation Ordinance allows for the removal of up to 51% of the protected trees before replacement measures are required. There are 10,909 inches of significant trees on site and the applicant is proposing to remove 5,393.5 inches or 49.44%. There is concern that the underlying roots of periphery trees extending into the graded area may be damaged and negatively affect the health of the trees. While these trees may remain on site, staff has asked the applicant to include any tree whose estimated canopy dripline extends into the graded area as removed. When including the periphery trees, removal numbers increase to 5,741.5 inches or 52.63%, resulting in 142 (2.5 inch) replacement trees to be provided. Although the adjusted removal numbers exceed the 51% threshold, there is a significant benefit in preserving large areas of forested land, maintaining forested areas adjacent to the Tree Preservation Area and implementing a conservation easement over many of the saved trees. The applicant is also proposing to add at least 300 new trees throughout the individual lots. Staff is comfortable with the tree preservation efforts and is not seeking the additional replacement trees be added. Project Point System: A Project Point System score of 80.71% was achieved primarily through the proposed architectural guidelines and the community park/pool with clubhouse. Based on the home styles the developer has provided in past developments, staff has no concerns with the architectural quality of the development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to recommend that the City Council direct staff to draft an Ordinance rezoning property from R-A, Single-Family Agricultural to R-2, PUD, Single-Family Residential, Planned Unit Development, subject to the approval of the Final Plat. Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Planned Unit Development Agreement and a Resolution approving the Elm Road PUD Concept Stage Plan, Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat subject to: 1. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 8 a. Public Works Dir./Assistant City Engineer dated February 13, 2020 b. The Community & Economic Development Department dated January 21, 2020 c. The Fire Department dated December 30, 2019 d. The Parks & Recreation Department, dated January 2, 2020 e. Traffic Engineer dated December 23, 2019 f. Water Resources Engineer dated February 3, 2020 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 Piket asked if staff had reviewed how one acre lots would look in this development. Mr. Corrow reported this was not discussed. Commissioner Lamothe thanked staff for providing the Council with a comparison between this development and Creekside Estates. He believed the two metrics were comparable and consistent. He stated he would like to have more discussion on the buffer. Mr. Corrow commented the plan was presented to the Arbor Committee and there were not any concerns regarding the buffer. He noted the Arbor Committee supported the tree conservation easement that was being provided in the northern portion of the development. Commissioner Lindeman thanked staff and the developer for addressing some of the concerns she had regarding the house sizes. Vice-Chair Ayika commented on the road design. He asked if roundabouts had been considered and questioned if the City would be taking any input from the public regarding the roadway design. Mr. Corrow explained the roadway design plans were not finalized. He stated at this time the Commission was being asked to review the development proposal and the roadway would be designed in the future. Commissioner Lenthe stated he had concerns with the ghost plat Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 9 and long cul-de-sac that was located to the south of this plat. Mr. Corrow indicated the ghost plat would not be approved this evening as it was not part of the current development. He explained the ghost plat was simply showing how future development could occur. He reported the proposed cul-de-sac would be 800 feet long and noted there were no options around this. He indicated the Fire Department had supported the proposed cul-de-sac length. He stated the only way to change the cul-de-sac length would be to work with the property to the east. He reiterated that the ghost plat was not being approved tonight. Commissioner Lenthe questioned what would happen if a connection to the east was desired and homes were built prior to finalizing this connection. Mr. Corrow stated a connection has not been proposed by the City because of the grade of the roadway. Vice-Chair Ayika asked for further clarification on staff’ s recommendation. Mr. Corrow reviewed the recommendation from staff. Vice-Chair Ayika requested the Commission make a motion to reopen the public hearing. Motion by Vice-Chair Ayika, seconded by Commissioner Lamothe, to reopen the public hearing. Upon call of the motion by Vice-Chair Ayika, there were five ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Vice-Chair Ayika opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Dave Gonyea, Gonyea Development, stated he had looked into one acre lots but explained the assessments per lot would become too high. He commented on how the price for land was on the rise and how this was impacting the price of homes. Vice-Chair Ayika asked what the size of the houses would be within this development. Mr. Gonyea estimated the houses would be 3,500 to 5,000 square feet. He indicated the prices would range from $650,000 up to $1.4 million. The public was asked by Vice-Chair Ayika if they had any comments to make regarding this application. Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 10 Vice-Chair Ayika acknowledged the 20+ letters the Planning Commission received from the public. Michael Schroeder explained he was representing Patricia Schroeder who lived at 16510 Elm Road. He stated he would like to see greater preservation of the woodlands. He commented on the grading plan and stated he had concerns with the grade within the buffer. He discussed how the woodlands would be impacted if a portion of the forest floor was exposed to sunlight when this has not occurred in the past. He feared the woodlands would be decimated and invasives would take over. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider further methods to preserve the woodlands while maintaining a proper edge of the forest so as not to adversely impact his parent’ s property. He indicated he was not against development in this area of the City but requested the woodlands be preserved. Chandra Gilbert, 16120 Elm Road, stated she had questions regarding the road. She expressed concern with how things will look along the road given the large number of trees that will be removed. She encouraged the developer save or replant as many trees as possible along Elm Road. She asked how wide the right- of-way would be for Elm Road. Vice-Chair Ayika explained the roadway design was not complete at this time. Mr. Corrow reported once the road was designed the City would better understand if right-of-way was needed from property owners. Ann Dryer, 6310 Everest Lane N, stated she was concerned about the drainage from this property. She questioned who would be maintaining the stormwater pond in the development. Mr. Corrow explained the City will maintain the stormwater ponds. Barbara Leighton, 16180 Elm Road, expressed concerns with the value of her property being maintained. She explained she would have six new homes to the east of her home. She believed the new development was too dense and she did not want stormwater running onto her property from these new homes. She stated she was also concerned with how her property would be impacted by headlight wash. Gary Novak, 6204 Comstock Lane, indicated he was concerned with the location of the stormwater retention pond. He discussed Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 11 how the water would drain from the proposed development. He asked if the City would own and land and maintain the retention pond after it was built in Phase II. Mr. Corrow explained the City would have an easement over the property in order to maintain the retention pond. Mr. Novak feared that the new location of the retention pond would make it difficult for neighboring properties to develop in the future. He recommended the pond be moved in order to allow the neighboring properties values to be maintained. Mr. Gonyea apologized for the confusion and noted his plans may have stated “ temporary pond” for Phase II, but stated this would be the permanent location for the retention pond. He explained the pond would be constructed and given to the City as part of Phase II of this development. Mr. Novak suggested the retention pond be located on another lot within Phase II or that a $ 750,000 escrow be created to assist with moving the stormwater pond in the future. He feared he would not receive a competitive land price given the proposed location of the retention pond. Mr. Corrow explained the intention would be to extend the road through the middle of the pond, where it is now. He stated this road has to go through. Vice-Chair Ayika explained the developer can only locate the retention pond on land he owns. He stated the location of the pond may change in the future if additional development occurs. Mr. Novak stated he would like to see the retention pond moved closer to the adjacent lowlands. He requested the entire project be denied given the proposed location of the retention pond in Phase II of the project. Mr. Gonyea commented on the ghost plat and stated he was uncertain how this property would develop. He stated he could support a condition that would state the Phase II retention pond would not interfere with the future road configuration. Mr. Novak questioned if the developer would support a condition that states the location of the pond would be decided at a later date. Mr. Gonyea explained the location of the pond could be determined when Phase II begins in order for him and staff to take Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 12 into consideration what other development was occurring. Mr. Novak stated the main concern was that the adjacent residents wanted to receive a competitive price for their property and with the proposed location of the retention pond, the residents fear this will not occur. Mary Hintzman, 6240 Everest Lane, discussed the previous plans for this development and questioned how the developer would keep the water from the development from running into the lowlands. She questioned if the City could approve Phase I and not Phase II of the project. Robert Lavigne, 6211 Comstock Lane, stated he lived to the west of the proposed development. He commented on how water would run down the hill from the development and into the lowlands. He expressed concern with the fact the developer had not provided a drainage plan. He stated he would be interested in reviewing this type of plan given the fact there was already drainage issues in this neighborhood. He feared how this would be compounded when over 100 new homes were constructed. Mr. Corrow reported a grading plan was required by the City and this plan showed how water within the development would flow. Mr. Lavigne questioned how the neighbors could be assured water would not flow onto their properties. He feared that the water problems the neighbors already had would be exacerbated. Mr. Corrow stated all drainage within the development would be directed to the storm system and the neighbors’ property would not be impacted. Mr. Hale discussed the watershed district requirements in further detail with Mr. Lavigne. Mr. Vickerman explained the grading plans were available for Mr. Lavigne to review online. Mr. Lavigne indicated he had concerns with the roadway and questioned who would be designing the roadway. Vice-Chair Ayika explained the City would be designing and constructing the roadway. He stated the roadway designs were not finalized. Mr. Lavigne expressed concern with how the additional traffic in the neighborhood would impact the area. He stated this was a big deal to him and the neighbors would like further information on how traffic concerns would be addressed. He indicated the speed of traffic along this roadway was also a concern. He anticipated the Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 13 speed of traffic would increase after the roadway was paved. He encouraged the City to consider installing two roundabouts in order to assist with slowing the speed of traffic. Mr. Lavigne asked if his property was being rezoned or if it was only the land the developer owns. Mr. Corrow reported the only land being rezoned was owned by the developer. Mr. Lavigne encouraged the City to develop something unique in this special area of Maple Grove and in order to assist in maintaining the greenspace. He suggested only 75 homes be constructed instead of 106. He anticipated homeowners would pay the premium for a larger lot with more greenspace. He questioned how the City knew this development was consistent with the needs and wants of Maple Grove residents. He explained he had a petition with over 700 signatures stating residents do not want more building. He stated he would like the City to focus on saving the greenspace instead of building more of the same. He encouraged the City to do something different and be more responsible for the greenspace for future generations. Vice-Chair Ayika encouraged Mr. Lavigne to forward his petition to City staff. He discussed how the price of the proposed homes noting they would be comparable to the neighboring homes. Ruth Kulberg, 6210 Comstock Lane, explained she had written a letter to the City. She reported she opposed the proposed development. She expressed concern with the fact the City had not more clearly addressed the water and drainage concerns. She understood this was a prime piece of property that would develop. She indicated she was bothered by the way the development was being proposed as being secluded when there would be over 100 homes on the land. She asked why the City would recommend this land be bulldozed for another typical neighborhood in Maple Grove. She encouraged the City to do something more in order to preserve the greenspace. Phil Hermann, 16683 Elm Road, asked if the EIS format was up to date and available online for this project. Mr. Vickerman reported an EIS or EAW was not required for this project. He stated the watershed district would be reviewing Phase I and Phase II plans for this development. Mr. Hermann questioned if the drainage plan had protectionary measures in place for construction runoff. Mr. Hale explained Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 14 every grading and construction project required an environmental permit to prevent erosion control and runoff. He reported this would be inspected weekly by the City and after each rainfall. He commented if silt fences were becoming full the developer would have to address this concern. Mr. Hermann believed this development should be low density in order to capture the beauty in this area of Maple Grove. Scott Kulberg, 6210 Comstock Lane, asked if the watershed district has approved this project. Mr. Vickerman reported the watershed district were notified when the plans come through and explained a grading permit would not be issued by the City until the developer receives approval from the watershed district. Further discussion ensued regarding the City and outside agency approval process for PUD’ s. Ms. Gilbert expressed concern with the elevation of the neighborhood. She questioned how the water would run uphill to the holding pond and not into the neighboring properties. Vice- Chair Ayika described how the stormwater system would be designed and sized properly to manage the water within the proposed development. Doug Hoekstra, 16912 Elm Road, asked who would be responsible for the impact on Elm Creek. He anticipated the creek would take on more water after the new development was completed. Mr. Hale reported the watershed district managed the creek. He explained the development could not put more water into the creek than it was already receiving. He indicated the City would be reviewing these plans as well. Mr. Lavigne questioned who would be responsible if the creek were to overflow unto an adjacent property. Vice-Chair Ayika commented if the creek were to overflow the property owner would have to demonstrate the developer was at fault. Mr. Lavigne He inquired if the City has ever had a development stop because it could not receive approval from the watershed district. Vice-Chair Ayika anticipated this would only happen if the site can not be properly engineered. Mr. Vickerman stated he has never seen a project stop because of watershed issues. He explained engineers typically come together from both sides in order to make necessary changes in order to move the plans Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 15 forward. Commissioner Lindeman reiterated the fact that the Planning Commission was a recommending body and the final decision on this project would be made by the City Council. Motion by Vice-Chair Ayika, seconded by Commissioner Lindeman, to close the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Upon call of the motion by Vice-Chair Ayika, there were five ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Commissioner Lamothe stated there were a lot of things for the Commission to consider regarding this project. He commented overall he was supportive of this project and the proposed density. He explained he had not problems with the stormwater and drainage. He anticipated the proposed project would improve the drainage in this neighborhood. He indicated he would like to see staff further review the site triangle and safety movements given the fact traffic would increase along Elm Road. He stated he did have concerns regarding the proposed buffer and explained he wanted to be sure this development was not negatively impacting the surrounding properties. He commented he would not be able to support this project until he was certain a proper buffer was in place. He stated he could support the development if the two development parcels in the most northwest corner were deferred. Vice-Chair Ayika asked if Commissioner Lamothe was asking for a portion of the buffer to be provided by a neighboring property owner. Commissioner Lamothe commented this was not his request. Rather he wanted the developer to provide a more adequate buffer given the fact a portion of the development was located within a Tree Preservation Zone ( TPZ). He reported TPZ’ s have special protections in place with respect to development. Vice-Chair Ayika indicated the Commission would like to better understand what was enough and what was not enough, when it came to tree preservation. He stated he agreed with Commissioner Lamothe and thought two lots should be deferred. He explained this was private property and would develop at some point. He reported the price and size of the new homes would be in the same range as the surrounding homes. He questioned what action the Commission wanted to take on this item, and asked if the item Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 16 should be tabled for further information from staff. Commissioner Piket stated what would be gained by tabling the item. Vice-Chair Ayika reported this would allow staff more time to further investigate the buffer and site triangle at Vicksburg and Elm Road. Commissioner Lamothe stated after speaking with the City Attorney he had an idea of how he would like to phrase a motion for approval. Commissioner Piket recommended the Commission address the rezoning first prior to making a motion on the PUD. Motion by Commissioner Piket, seconded by Commissioner Lamothe, to recommend that the City Council direct staff to draft an Ordinance rezoning property from R-A, Single- Family Agricultural to R-2, PUD, Single-Family Residential, Planned Unit Development, subject to the approval of the Final Plat. Upon call of the motion by Vice-Chair Ayika, there were five ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Commissioner Piket asked if the Commission had to approve Phase I and Phase II together. Vice-Chair Ayika explained the request was made for both Phases together. He indicated the Commission could put restrictions on the retention. City Attorney Landsman offered language to the Commission to address the pond concerns. He stated when the City Council approves a project the approval was conditional. He explained all conditions must be met at certain benchmarks. He suggested an additional condition for approval be as follows: Temporary Pond 1W and Filter Basin 1W location shall be determined by the City prior to any permits being issued for the development of Phase II. City Attorney Landsman proposed the following language regarding the buffer: Lots 82 and 83 on the Preliminary Plat shall not be developed as part of any phase until such time the developer provides evidence, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer, that a buffer will protect the trees within adjoining Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 17 properties. Commissioner Lamothe commented the City may not have someone on staff to determine if the trees will be protected. For this reason, he suggested the end of that statement be modified to state the applicant shall provide necessary funds to allow the City to hire consultants to complete the proper analysis and make a recommendation on whether or not Lots 82 and 83 can be developed. City Attorney Landsman recommended the statement read as follows: Lots 82 and 83 on the Preliminary Plat shall not be developed as part of any phase until such time the developer provides evidence, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and a consulting arborist or similar profession, that a buffer will protect the trees within adjoining properties. Commissioner Lamothe requested the phrase protect the trees be changed to not degrade the existing forest. Motion by Commissioner Lamothe, seconded by Commissioner Lindeman, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Planned Unit Development Agreement and a Resolution approving the Elm Road PUD Concept Stage Plan, Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat subject to: 1. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: a. Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer dated February 13, 2020 b. The Community & Economic Development Department dated January 21, 2020 c. The Fire Department dated December 30, 2019 d. The Parks & Recreation Department, dated January 2, 2020 e. Traffic Engineer dated December 23, 2019 f. Water Resources Engineer dated February 3, 2020 2. The applicant shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Temporary Pond 1W and Filter Basin 1W location shall be determined by the City prior to Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 18 any permits being issued for the development of Phase II. b. Lots 82 and 83 on the Preliminary Plat shall not be developed as part of any phase until such time the developer provides evidence, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and a consulting arborist or similar profession, that a buffer will not degrade the quality of the existing forest within adjoining properties. 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. Commissioner Lindeman stated she has visited this property and understood the desire to protect this land. She indicated it would be great to keep the land as is. However, she explained the developer had the right to develop the site. She indicated there was a demand the proposed housing style and noted she would be supporting the proposed motion with the two conditions. Commissioner Piket explained this land was zoned for residential single-family homes per the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He encouraged the residents to get involved in the Comprehensive Planning process in the future. He understood that the adjacent neighbors wanted to keep this area greenspace, but at this time, the land was owned by a developer and the developer had rights. Commissioner Lenthe indicated he was new to this process and he agreed with the statements that have been made. He reported the request was consistent with City requirements and for this reason he would be supporting the development. Vice-Chair Ayika encouraged City staff to look closely at the drainage and grading plan if this project were approved by the City Council given the high level of concern that has been raised by the neighbors. Upon call of the motion by Vice-Chair Ayika, there were five ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Maple Grove Planning Commission February 24, 2020 Page 19 DISCUSSION There were no discussion items. ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Piket, seconded by Commissioner Lindeman, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Upon call of the motion by Vice-Chair Ayika, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Vice-Chair Ayika adjourned the meeting at 9:09 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for March 9, 2020.