Planning Commission

MAPLE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION April 27, 2020 CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Maple Grove Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. on April 27, 2020 at the Maple Grove City Hall, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Chair Colson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Due to the COVID- 19 pandemic this meeting was held virtually. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Planning Commission members present were Chair Larry Colson, Vice- Chair Chris Ayika, Lorie Klein, Craig Lamothe, Susan Lindeman, Chuck Lenthe, and Joe Piket. Present also were Karen Jaeger, City Council Liaison; Joe Hogeboom, Community and Economic Development Director; Peter Vickerman, Planning Manager; and Scott Landsman, City Attorney. ITEMS TO BE None. REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA CONSENT ITEMS The following Consent Items were presented for the Commission’ s approval: A. Regular Meeting – March 30, 2020 B. Territorial Greens – TABLED to Monday, May 11, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting. Trek Real Estate and Development, Inc. 13653 Territorial Road and 13501 Territorial Road PUD Concept Stage Plan Amendment for the purpose of medium density residential project with a mix of high-density multi-family, medium-density housing and low-density detached villas. C. Territorial Greens East – TABLED to Monday, May 11, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting. 13501 Territorial Road PUD Development Stage Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat for the purpose of constructing 73 attached townhome units. D. Territorial Greens West – TABLED to Monday, May 11,  Maple Grove Planning Commission April 27, 2020 Page 2 2020, Planning Commission Meeting. Trek Real Estate and Development, Inc. 13653 Territorial Road PUD Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat for the purpose of a 4 story 208-unit multi-family building and 13 single family residential lots. Motion by Commissioner Lenthe, seconded by Commissioner Ayika, 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 None. OF ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW OF THE Mr. Hogeboom reviewed with the Commission what items the City CITY COUNCIL Council approved that was given direction at the Planning Commission level. He described the small business loan program MINUTES FROM the City Council approved last week. He reported the City Council THEIR REGULAR was looking to pass a moratorium on new apartment projects in MEETING OF Maple Grove for the next 12 months in order to better understand APRIL 20, 2020 the impact these complexes were having on the City’s resources and infrastructure. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Vickerman stated the applicant seeks PUD Concept Stage Plan Amendment for a senior residential use at the Village Arbor THE VILLAGE AT Lakes development. This would be for a five story, 198 unit ARBOR LAKES senior housing development and slightly adjusting the commercial uses in the northwest corner of the Village. The senior housing DORAN would provide a continuum of care with independent, assisted and DEVELOPMENT, memory care units. He reviewed the location of the parking for LLC the senior building. This Comprehensive Plan guides this site OUTLOT F – Regional Mixed Use, non-retail focus and high density housing was an allowed use. The proposal has a density of 59 units per ARBOR LAKES acre. Staff commented on the job estimates for the senior housing PARKWAY N/ noting 35 to 50 full time jobs would be created. It was noted the HEMLOCK LN N site was previously proposed for office, but explained the proposed use would have a higher tax value. Staff supported the PUD CONCEPT proposed use and recommended the Planning Commission  Maple Grove Planning Commission April 27, 2020 Page 3 STAGE PLAN recommend the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a AMENDMENT FOR Resolution approving the PUD Concept Amendment for The Village Arbor Lakes, subject to: A SENIOR RESIDENTIAL USE 1. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City AT THE VILLAGE any remaining applicable comments contained in the ARBOR LAKES memorandums from: DEVELOPMENT a. The Community and Economic Development AND SLIGHT Department dated April 17, 2020 b. The Fire Department, dated April 20, 2020 ADJUSTMENTS TO c. The Water Resources Engineer, dated March 16, THE OTHER USES 2020 ON OUTLOT F d. The Parks and Recreation Department, dated March 18, 2020 e. The Transportation Operations Engineer, dated March 18, 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. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Tony Kuechle, Doran Development, thanked the Commission for accommodating his request. He appreciated the fact that the Planning Commission was still holding this meeting. He commented further on 198 unit senior living continuum of care facility. He reported the facility would have 117 units would be independent living units, 59 assisted living units and 22 memory care units. He described how the proposed five story building would add interest to this area of the Village at Arbor Lakes. He discussed the enhanced landscaping and architecture that would be used on the building. He explained he has been marketing this site for office for the past three years and has been unable to gain traction. He anticipated that service/retail office may be the only interest he has but that would be for a smaller two story building. Commissioner Lenthe stated he was concerned about the noise level that would occur on Hemlock Lane. He questioned if the structure would be built to quiet the interior of the units. Mr. Kuechle reported there were things he could do to quiet the interior of the units. He explained the building envelope would have a higher SDC rating and noted double or triple paned windows could Maple Grove Planning Commission April 27, 2020 Page 4 be used to help decrease the noise level. Commissioner Lenthe questioned if the building had adequate parking. Mr. Kuechle explained the building would have parking stalls under the building for its independent living guests and staff and visitor parking would happen on the surface lot. Commissioner Lamothe asked how the developer felt about the robust recommendations for the landscaping and architecture for the building. Mr. Kuechle stated he was in agreement with staff’ s recommendations. Commissioner Lamothe inquired what the long term demand was for this type of senior housing unit. Mr. Kuechle reported he was excited about this product at this location. He stated he has the highest percentage of empty nesters within his portfolio within The Reserve project. He commented on how these empty nesters would need to transition to senior living and the proposed project would allow them to age in place within the community. He discussed how the senior housing market would peak in ten to twelve years. Commissioner Piket questioned how optimistic the developer was that the retail/restaurant spaces would be filled. Mr. Kuechle commented he was not looking to expand the senior living facility into this space. He explained there would be a big transition in office space post COVID-19. He anticipated the demand for this space would further go down. He was optimistic he could get a restaurant on the east side. He commented further on how the demand for retail in this area would be driven in the future. Commissioner Ayika asked if the site would have any type of recreational facility. Mr. Kuechle discussed the common spaces that would be created within the senior living facility. Commissioner Lenthe inquired if this item would come back to the Commission for further consideration. Chair Colson reported this was Concept Stage Plan and would come back to the Commission for Final Stage Plan approval. Chair Colson opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Maple Grove Planning Commission April 27, 2020 Page 5 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 Klein, to close the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Chair Colson stated he was not in favor of this proposal. He commented on the history of this project and noted the tradeoffs the City had approved over time. He explained the City did not want more retail in this area or a dramatic increase in density. He recognized that the developer had reduced the retail but indicated the developer was proposing a dramatic increase in density. He understood the City had the right to approve projects with increased density if they were showing extraordinary design, attributes or amenities. He anticipated the developer would address the architecture and landscaping between the Concept Stage Plan and Final Stage Plan approval process. However, even with this done, he would still not be able to support the proposed level of density. Commissioner Piket questioned when the original proposal for this site came to the City for consideration. Mr. Vickerman stated this was at the end of 2015 and has since been modified. Commissioner Lindeman reported the applicant has made a point regarding office space. She commented on how easy her work has gone to working remotely. She stated there may be a lot of businesses not returning to their office space after COVID-19 given the expense. Chair Colson commented he did not disagree with but noted he was concerned with the level of density for what the City was getting with this project. Commissioner Ayika agreed with Chair Colson but stated the height of the building was appealing to him. Motion by Commissioner Ayika, seconded by Commissioner Piket, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution approving the PUD Concept  Maple Grove Planning Commission April 27, 2020 Page 6 Amendment for The Village Arbor Lakes, subject to: 1. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: a. The Community and Economic Development Department dated April 17, 2020 b. The Fire Department, dated April 20, 2020 c. The Water Resources Engineer, dated March 16, 2020 d. The Parks and Recreation Department, dated March 18, 2020 e. The Transportation Operations Engineer, dated March 18, 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. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were six ayes and one nay (Chair Colson). Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Lamothe, to remove this item from the table. Upon call of the motion by ZOTA INTERNAL Chair Colson, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion APPEAL carried. LIMITATIONS Mr. Hogeboom stated the City was proposing a Zoning Ordinance CITY OF MAPLE Text Amendment for the purpose of amending City Code regarding GROVE Internal Appeal Limitations. He explained back in January the Commission was presented with an Ordinance that addressed the ZONING appeal time an aggrieved party would have to a zoning order from ORDINANCE TEXT 90 days to 30 days. He reported the Planning Commission tabled AMENDMENT FOR action on this item to allow staff to further research the appeals process. Staff commented further on the proposed City Code THE PURPOSE OF amendment and recommended the Planning Commission AMENDING CITY recommend that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 20-03, CODE amending city code section 36-121 regarding Internal Appeal REGARDING Limitations period and set a Limitations period for Judicial INTERNAL Appeals. Maple Grove Planning Commission April 27, 2020 Page 7 APPEAL LIMITATIONS Discussion Commissioner Klein stated she was not opposed to 30 days but wanted some additional information from comparison cities. She asked if staff had looked into additional cities for comparison information. Mr. Hogeboom reported Brooklyn Park and Plymouth both had a 30 day limit. Commissioner Lindeman explained she supported the 30 day recommendation after not originally supporting this matter in January. Commissioner Piket agreed stating he did not originally support this matter, but after thinking about it further he recommended the 30 day appeal limit be set for the City. Mr. Hogeboom reported this regulation would apply to variances and conditional use permits along with administrative code enforcement issues. He discussed how the change in time limit would assist the City in addressing concerns in a more timely manner versus the 90 day time limit. City Attorney Landsman discussed how the 30 day limit would benefit the City and explained how this action would follow suit with what other cities were doing. He stated approval of the 30 day limit would allow parties to move forward with confidence after the 30 day window. Chair Colson questioned how long the City had to make a decision if an appeal was made on day 30. Mr. Hogeboom reported if an appeal was made on day 30 the appeal would go through the same process as other applications. Chair Colson asked if it was a fair assessment that residents receiving a variance for a project had better wait before starting a project. City Attorney Landsman advised if no objections come about in the first 30 days, the project could move forward. However, if something were to come in, the project would have to take a step back and would have to wait until the process was over. Chair Colson opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. The public was asked by Chair Colson if they had any comments to make regarding this application. Maple Grove Planning Commission April 27, 2020 Page 8 No one wished to address the Commission. Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Piket, to close the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Lindeman, to recommend that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 20-03, amending city code section 36-121 regarding Internal Appeal Limitations period and set a Limitations period for Judicial Appeals. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. DISCUSSION There were no discussion items. ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Lenthe, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Chair Colson adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for May 11, 2020.