Planning Commission

MAPLE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION November 30, 2020 CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Maple Grove Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. on November 30, 2020 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 Planning Commission members present were Chair Larry Colson, Vice- Chair Chris Ayika, Lorie Klein, Craig Lamothe, Chuck Lenthe, and Joe Piket. Absent was Commissioner Susan Lindeman. Present also were Karen Jaeger, City Council Liaison; Joe Hogeboom, Community and Economic Development Director; Peter Vickerman, Planning Manager; Jesse Corrow, Associate Planner; Brett Angell, Economic Development 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: MINUTES A. Regular Meeting – September 28, 2020 Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Ayika, to approve the Consent Items as presented. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were six 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 Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 2 MINUTES FROM Commission level. He reported The Great Greek and Riviera THEIR REGULAR Maya recently opened on Main Street in Maple Grove. MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2020 OLD BUSINESS No items to present. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Vickerman stated the applicant is requesting a planned unit PUBLIC HEARING development ( PUD), development stage plan and final plat for a 250- unit market rate apartment building. The proposed building is MHV MULTI- located at the southwest corner of Grove Circle Drive and 99th FAMILY Place North in the Project 100/ Minnesota Health Village campus MINNESOTA that was approved conceptually in February 2020. HEALTH VILLAGE) Mr. Vickerman explained the proposed apartment building is in the same general location as what was shown in the concept plan. The ROERS building has been rotated 90 degrees so that the courtyard opens to the west versus the south, but in most other respects it is similar to INVESTMENTS the concept plan approval. Vehicular access comes off of 99th Place North and there is a combination of underground and above 1-94/ HWY 610 – ground parking. A large central courtyard with a pool is proposed OUTLOTS A & B in the middle of the site with the building wrapping around the courtyard. A public park component, wetland and other open PUD space sit to the south of the building. Overall the proposal is in DEVELOPMENT conformance with the approved concept plan. Staff reviewed the STAGE PLAN AND landscaping plan and offers a recommendation of approval with FINAL PLAT FOR conditions. A PROPOSED MARKET RATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 250- UNIT RENTAL Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City HOUSING Attorney to draft a Resolution approving the MVH Multi- Family PUD development stage plan and final plat, subject to: 1. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: a. The Community & Economic Development Department dated November 4, 2020 Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 3 b. The Fire Department dated November 11, 2020 c. The Water Resources Engineer dated October 9, 2020 d. The Parks & Recreation Department, dated November 15, 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 Chair Colson asked if a formal variance for the fire access road would be handled. Mr. Vickerman reported this would be handled with the Fire Department directly. Chair Colson questioned what the difference was between a residential multi-dwelling and a single-family residential with respect to park dedication fees. Mr. Vickerman discussed how the City sets park dedication fees for single-family residential units and residential multi-dwelling units. It was noted affordable projects received a reduction. Commissioner Lenthe expressed concern with the fact the garage parking area only had one access point. Mr. Vickerman indicated this may be due to how the site was shaped. He deferred this question to the applicant. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Jeff Koch, Roers Investments, thanked the Commission for their time. He explained the garage would have one main entrance but noted a second garage door was available in case of an emergency. He reported this was consistent with other projects he has completed without any operational issues. He stated he was very excited to complete this project in the City of Maple Grove. Commissioner Ayika asked when the applicant would begin construction on this project. Mr. Koch stated he was planning to begin construction at the end of January or the beginning of February in 2021. He commented further on the growing need for housing in the metro area. Motion by Commissioner Piket, seconded by Commissioner Ayika, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 4 Attorney to draft a Resolution approving the MVH Multi- Family PUD development stage plan and final plat, subject to: 1. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: a. The Community & Economic Development Department dated November 4, 2020 b. The Fire Department dated November 11, 2020 c. The Water Resources Engineer dated October 9, 2020 d. The Parks & Recreation Department, dated November 15, 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 no nays. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Hogeboom stated Duffy Development Company is proposing to develop the third and final phase of the Bottineau Ridge BOTTINEAU apartments, located west of Hemlock Lane and north of Arbor RIDGE PHASE III Lakes Parkway. Bottineau Ridge was first conceptualized in 2015 as a location for attainable family housing that is near to jobs, DUFFY services, and future transit opportunities. At that time, the City DEVELOPMENT approved the concept of the project, as well as approved a CO. INC. comprehensive plan amendment that enabled its development. HEMLOCK LANE Mr. Hogeboom explained the proposed third phase of the N/ARBOR LAKES Bottineau Ridge development will consist of a four-story, 50-unit PARKWAY N, building that will be a mirror image of the second phase. The OUTLOT A second and third phase buildings will connect via a courtyard area. On site amenities will include a community room, a fitness room, a PUD business office, and an on-site property management office. There DEVELOPMENT will be an average of two parking stalls available per unit, half of STAGE PLAN AND which will be located in an underground parking garage. This, as FINAL PLAT TO well as building façade treatments, are identical to that of Phase II. CONSTRUCT THE Bottineau Ridge provides affordable housing to families in Maple Grove. In addition to housing, Bottineau Ridge offers various  Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 5 THIRD AND FINAL onsite services and amenities to assist residents in obtaining PHASE OF A 50- various needs. A fly through video of the project was screened for the Commission. Staff commented further on the proposed project UNIT MULTI- and recommended approval with conditions. FAMILY HOUSING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution and a planned unit development agreement approving the Bottineau Ridge Phase III PUD development stage plan and final plat subject to: 1. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: a. The Engineering Department, dated October 27, 2020 b. Water Resources Engineer, dated October 22, 2020 c. The Fire Department, dated November 5, 2020 d. The Building Department, dated October 19, 2020 e. The Arbor Committee, dated November 16, 2020 f. The Parks & Recreation Department, dated November 9, 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. For this project, the City Council previously enacted various fee waivers that impact park dedication fee amounts. Board meetings are held on the third Thursday of each month. Discussion Chair Colson requested further information regarding the accessible parking. Mr. Hogeboom reported the applicant would be addressing this concern during the building permit phase. Commissioner Ayika commented it was his understanding the City had a moratorium on apartment buildings. Mr. Hogeboom reported the moratorium was still in place and would remain in place until mid-May 2021. He explained the moratorium would prevent any new applications from coming forward and would allow the City to complete a housing study. He commented the moratorium did not apply to any multi-family developments that Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 6 had received prior concept plan approval. Commissioner Klein recommended the development include benches and that the doors be easily opened. She questioned if the garage would have charging stations. Mr. Hogeboom explained the project had been reviewed by the Age Friendly Maple Grove Committee. He deferred the questions regarding charging stations and benches to the applicant. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Jeff Von Feldt, Duffy Development, thanked staff for the thorough report. He stated he supported all of staff’ s recommendations. He addressed the park dedication fees and noted the City gives a 25% discount for affordable housing units. He explained this project would be extremely walkable and noted benches could be installed as part of Phase III. He indicated he could install electric car and bike charging stations. Commissioner Klein suggested all future development design standards require electric charging stations. Further discussion ensued regarding electric charging stations. Motion by Commissioner Lamothe, seconded by Commissioner Ayika, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution and a planned unit development agreement approving the Bottineau Ridge Phase III PUD development stage plan and final plat subject to: 1. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: a. The Engineering Department, dated October 27, 2020 b. Water Resources Engineer, dated October 22, 2020 c. The Fire Department, dated November 5, 2020 d. The Building Department, dated October 19, 2020 e. The Arbor Committee, dated November 16, 2020 f. The Parks & Recreation Department, dated November 9, 2020 The applicant shall acknowledge that Park Dedication requirements are based on staff review and recommendation Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 7 to the Park and Recreation Board and their subsequent board action. For this project, the City Council previously enacted various fee waivers that impact park dedication fee amounts. Board meetings are held on the third Thursday of each month. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Mr. Vickerman stated the applicant is requesting a comprehensive PUBLIC HEARING plan amendment and planned unit development concept stage plan approval for a 23.9-acre development that would consist of 42 AVERY PARK single family detached homes and 77 townhomes. The site is D.R. HORTON, currently the Ahrens Greenhouse property at 9533 Jefferson INC. MINNESOTA Highway N and consists of greenhouse buildings and open grass areas. 9533 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY NORTH Mr. Vickerman reported the current comprehensive plan guides this land for low-medium density residential uses which allows COMPREHENSIVE generally single-family residential units at a density of one to four PLAN units per acre. The applicant is requesting that the site be reguided AMENDMENT to medium density residential which has a range of 4-10 units per AND A PUD acre. The applicant’ s proposal is at five units per acre, thus CONCEPT STAGE necessitating the request for an amendment. Staff commented further on the concept plan of the development. PLAN FOR A PROPOSED Mr. Vickerman explained staff recommends approval of the NEIGHBORHOOD proposal. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is a TO INCLUDE reasonable request for the site considering the location adjacent to APPROXIMATELY major roadways such as Highway 610 and Jefferson Highway and 77 ATTACHED more intense uses planned for across Jefferson Highway in Brooklyn Park. The applicant is also proposing an overall density TOWNHOMES at the low end (five units per acre) of the medium density range of AND 42 4-10 units per acre. In addition to the relatively low density, they DETACHED have proposed single-family homes adjacent to the existing single- SINGLE- FAMILY family home neighborhood to the west and townhomes closer to HOMES Jefferson Highway. This helps the proposal fit well into the overall context of the adjacent neighborhoods. Staff has no major issues with the concept plan proposal either. The site is arranged in a reasonable way with a good variety of architecture is proposed for the site. The pedestrian and bicycle connections will enhance the ability for non-motorized movement for both existing residents in the adjacent neighborhood and the new residents of this neighborhood. We note there are some minor adjustments that would need to be made with any development stage plan and these are listed in the memorandums. Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution approving the Avery Park comprehensive plan amendment and PUD concept stage plan subject to: 1. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: a. The Community & Economic Development Department dated November 10, 2020 b. The Engineering Department dated November 10, 2020 c. The Water Resources Engineer dated October 12, 2020 d. The Parks & Recreation Department dated November 10, 2020 e. MnDOT dated November 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 the land use change would only impact the townhomes. Mr. Vickerman explained the applicant put together a plan based on the concerns raised by neighbors. He reported the single-family area could remain low density and the comprehensive plan amendment change could only be for the townhome portion of the development. Commissioner Piket indicated this development would not have a Nathan Lane access point. Mr. Vickerman stated this was the case. Commissioner Lamothe questioned what the land use was for the parcel to the east of the proposed development. He inquired if there would be a traffic signal at Jefferson Highway and Decatur in Brooklyn Park. Mr. Vickerman indicated the land use for the vacant land to the east of Jefferson Highway was guided for mixed Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 9 use. Commissioner Lenthe stated he had many concerns regarding this project, particularly regarding the layout of the townhomes. He feared the roadway within the townhome project was too narrow. He asked if the applicant could reduce the accesses to the garages and have this replaced with public roadway. He commented he supported a noise wall and recommended the ponds be further improved. He explained he was concerned with the fact there would not be room for a sidewalk or parallel parking within the townhome association. He recommended the applicant reconsider the plan. He suggested the item be tabled to allow for the applicant to reconsider the townhome portion of this project. Commissioner Ayika indicated the City and the developer have closed the door on opening up the cul-de-sac to Nathan Lane. He believed this was not proper planning. He expressed concern with how traffic would flow through the neighborhood with only one access point. He understood there were neighbors that were complaining about higher traffic levels, but he did not recommend the City moving forward with planning in this manner. Commissioner Piket reported a connection to the adjacent neighborhood was not recommended because this would create a bigger traffic concern. Commissioner Ayika understood traffic would increase through this neighborhood, but this should have been the assumption when future development occurred. He believed there needed to be connectivity in the City’ s development projects. Chair Colson asked what the City’s standard lot width was. Mr. Vickerman stated 80 feet was the standard lot width. Chair Colson questioned why it took so long for the property to be turned back from MnDOT. Mr. Vickerman explained there were a significant number of turn back requests at MnDOT and the requests took time to be reviewed and approved. Chair Colson requested further information regarding the townhome row parking. Mr. Vickerman commented one of the conditions for approval would that if the 50 foot right of way stays public, the head in parking would have to go away. Chair Colson indicated he has been relatively consistent with Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 10 respect to neighborhood connections. However, he noted this one did not bother him because Nathan Lane was so short. Further discussion ensued regarding how traffic would flow through this neighborhood and onto the adjacent streets. Mr. Vickerman spoke to the possibility of tabling this item. He explained the City was approaching the end of the 120 time frame. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Deb Ridgeway, D.R. Horton, commented on the concerns that were raised by the Commission regarding the townhome roadways and neighborhood access. She reported she likes to provide ample parking for her residents and their guests. She noted she would look into the parking situation further for the townhome portion of the development. She noted the finger streets were typically kept private. She indicated a noise study would be completed as part of the preliminary plat process. She stated the ponding would also be reviewed with MnDOT. Fran Hagen, D.R. Horton, explained the development could be tied into the adjacent pond, but noted MnDOT would not allow for any excavation or enhancement to their ponds. Ms. Ridgeway indicated she would take the City’s lead regarding the Nathan Lane connection but it was her understanding the adjacent neighborhood did not support the connection. She stated she was looking forward to bringing this project forward. Chair Colson commented he would not be opposed to changing the guiding for the increase in units, but he recommended the project be separated into two separate parcels. Chair Colson opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. The public was asked by Chair Colson if they had any comments to make regarding this application. James Penaz, 9526 Orleans Lane, explained he was a 42 year resident of Maple Grove at his address. He thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak and for all of their hard work on behalf of the community. He indicated the affected area Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 11 by the proposed development was one of the oldest developments in Maple Grove. He requested the City not approve the connection between the two neighborhoods. He discussed how this connection would negatively impact his neighborhood. He stated he understood the area adjacent to his neighborhood would develop some day, and he did not oppose this development. He feared how the residents at 9515 Nathan Lane and 9904 95th would be impacted by turning cars. He explained he and his neighbors value the peace and quiet within their neighborhood. He appreciated the fact that D.R. Horton was willing to address his concerns. Mr. Penaz questioned what the overall density was for the proposed project. Chair Colson reported the overall density was 5.0 units per acre. Mr. Penaz asked if the watermains would be taken in from TH610. He explained he would like the water lines and water pressure within the neighborhood to remain as is. He stated the adjacent neighborhood supported the project moving forward this evening. Mr. Vickerman discussed how the waterlines would be looped but noted it has not been determined where the sewer lines would be connected. Fran Hagen, Westwood Professional Services, reported the sewer lines would be connected at Nathan Lane. He commented the watermain would be connected at TH610 and along the cul-de-sac to the south. He noted these connections would help with the water pressures within the adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Penaz encouraged the City to consider dropping the speed limit for Jefferson Highway down to 40 miles per hour after the bridge. Chair Colson thanked Mr. Penaz for his comments. Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Lenthe, to close the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Commissioner Ayika thanked Mr. Penaz for his comments. He encouraged staff to further investigate the alignment of this development with adjacent homes and consider how traffic and light wash would impact these homes. He stated he still supported Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 12 the connection to the adjacent neighborhood but he understood this would not be approved. Chair Colson thanked the residents and developer for coming together to discuss the concerns regarding this development. Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Klein, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution approving the Avery Park comprehensive plan amendment and PUD concept stage plan subject to: 1. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: a. The Community & Economic Development Department dated November 10, 2020 b. The Engineering Department dated November 10, 2020 c. The Water Resources Engineer dated October 12, 2020 d. The Parks & Recreation Department dated November 10, 2020 e. MnDOT dated November 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. Commissioner Lamothe reported he supported the connection not being made to the adjacent neighborhood. He discussed the connectivity precedent that had been set in previous developments. He noted the adjacent neighborhood was one of the oldest developments in Maple Grove and it didn’ t have sidewalks. He feared how this neighborhood would be impacted by increased traffic without having proper pedestrian facilities. He stated in this case, he would be recommending the neighborhood connection not be made. Commissioner Piket recommended the City Council have the Comprehensive Plan Amendment apply only to the townhome portion of the proposal. Maple Grove Planning Commission November 30, 2020 Page 13 Motion amendment by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Klein, to recommend that the City Council have the Comprehensive Plan Amendment apply only to the townhome portion of the project. Upon call of the amendment by Chair Colson, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Upon call of the amended motion by Chair Colson, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. DISCUSSION There were no discussion items. ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Motion by Chair Colson, seconded by Commissioner Piket, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Upon call of the motion by Chair Colson, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Chair Colson adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for December 14, 2020.