Planning Commission

Maple Grove Planning Commission meeting minutes May 13, 2024 Call to order A meeting of the Maple Grove Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. on May 13, 2024 at the Maple Grove City Hall, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Chair Lamothe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance Roll call Planning Commission members present were Chair Craig Lamothe, Chris Ayika (arrived at 7:20 p.m.), Lorie Klein, Chuck Lenthe, Michael Ostaffe, Joe Piket and Stephanie Tomlinson. Present also were Kristy Barnett, City Council Liaison; Peter Vickerman, Planning Manager; Jesse Corrow, City Planner; Joe Amerman, Economic Development Manager; and Scott Landsman, City Attorney. Items to be removed None. from the agenda Consent items The following Consent Items were presented for the Commission’s approval: A. Regular Meeting – April 29, 2024 B. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – Two Stall Garage Requirements - TABLED Motion by Commissioner Picket, seconded by Commissioner Klein, to approve the Consent Items as presented. Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Consideration of items None. pulled from consent agenda Update on city council Councilmember Barnett reviewed with the Commission what meeting items the City Council approved that was given direction at the Planning Commission level. OLD BUSINESS No items to present.  Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS Public hearing Mr. Amerman stated Lee Edward Properties, LLP, the applicant, are seeking a planned unit development concept stage plan, Grove Square West rezoning, and final plat approval in order to pursue development Addition of a 7,200 square foot multi-tenant medical-office building Lee Edwards Properties, located at 13995 Maple Knoll Way North. The building will be LLP built on property acquired from Comcast of Minnesota and 13995 Maple Knoll Way Wisconsin, and will abut Weaver Lake Road North to the south. North The applicant is the owner of a medical office building at 13800 83rd Way North, immediately adjacent to the east. Comcast is Planned unit looking to sell the southernmost .9 acres of undeveloped land in development concept the parcel to the applicant, which will require subdivision. Staff stage plan and final plat discussed the plans in further detail and made the following for the purpose of recommendation. subdividing a parcel for potential expansion of STAFF RECOMMENDATION: multi-tenant campus Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution and a planned unit development agreement approving the Grove Square West Addition planned unit development concept 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 April 19, 2024 b. The Fire Department dated April 16, 2024 c. The Parks & Recreation Department dated May 7, 2024 d. Hennepin County Transportation dated April 16, 2024 Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance approving the rezoning from B (Business District) to B-PUD (Business District-Planned Unit Development). Discussion Commissioner Lenthe asked if staff had any comment regarding the comments from Hennepin County regarding right of way Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 3 versus easement along Weaver Lake Road. Mr. Amerman stated he had no comment at this time. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Ben Krsnak, Lee Edward Properties representative, commented on the projects he had completed in Maple Grove and stated he was aware of the city’s requirements. He reported he would be constructing a high quality medical office building. He thanked the Commission for considering his request and noted he was available for questions. Chair Lamothe questioned if the applicant would be waiting to pursue final approvals until tenants were lined up for this building. Mr. Krsnak reported he was hoping to have the building 40% to 50% leased before breaking ground. Commissioner Piket requested further comment from the applicant regarding the layout of the building and proposed access points. Mr. Krsnak stated there was not access available to the west and noted the cul-de-sac was difficult to get to. Commissioner Ostaffe indicated traffic to this area was already a mess. He feared how the area would be impacted by the proposed medical building. He asked if a traffic study had been completed for this project. Mr. Krsnak reported he had not completed a traffic study. Chair Lamothe stated this property may become a nice cut through to the adjacent neighborhood. However, he also saw the benefit of connecting these two properties. He questioned if this site was adequately parked. Mr. Amerman explained the property would be adequately parked. Commissioner Lenthe supported this property being accessed from the cul-de-sac to the east. Mr. Amerman stated the applicant had brought forward his preferred entry point to the property. Commissioner Piket indicated the proposed entry point may not be easier than entering the property from the cul-de-sac. Chair Lamothe stated he understood the concerns that were raised from Commissioner Ostaffe and Commissioner Piket. Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 4 However, when considering the uses on the cul-de-sac, they were primarily medical in nature, outside of the daycare. He suggested the property be access from the cul-de-sac and not as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Krsnak explained he would have concerns regarding the economic viability of the building the access point were changed. He reported the access point to the east (Weaver Lake Road) was very desirable. In addition, he wanted the flexibility to be able to cross park with the adjacent properties. He stated he would have a lot of concern if the cross access point were eliminated. Chair Lamothe opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. The public was asked by Chair Lamothe if they had any comments to make regarding this application. No one wished to address the Commission. Motion by Chair Lamothe, seconded by Commissioner Piket, to close the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Commissioner Ostaffe stated there may not be enough support from the Commission for the project in its current form. He questioned if the applicant would support the Commission tabling action on this item in order to allow the applicant to reconsider the alignment of the project. Commissioner Piket indicated he could make a motion on this item with the access being switched, but he was uncertain if the applicant would be agreeable to this. He anticipated they could make a motion on the rezoning and this would pass. Commissioner Ayika explained the applicant has stated they may be financially handicapped if the building only had one entrance point. He commented on how it may be confusing to have two entrance points to this property, but noted he would be able to support this. Mr. Amerman stated staff did not support the property have two access points because the property could then become a thru-  Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 5 way. Further discussion ensued regarding access to this property. Chair Lamothe indicated another would be to move the chain access to the site. Mr. Krsnak suggested the building be shifted to the north and that the parking be shifted to the south. Mr. Amerman stated this was an attractive idea and he would want to review these plans further. Commissioner Ostaffe indicated he would like to see revised plans with the applicant’s suggestions. He recommended this item be tabled in order to allow staff and the applicant to revise the plans. Commissioner Piket agreed action on the item should be tabled in order to allow for the plans to revised. Mr. Krsnak stated he would rather see the Commission taking action on the item as proposed to be amended in order to keep the project moving forward versus action on the item being tabled for months. Chair Lamothe clarified the item would only be tabled for two weeks and the Planning Commission could reconsider the revised plans on May 28. Mr. Krsnak stated he could support the item being tabled to the May 28 Planning Commission meeting. Motion by Commissioner Ostaffe, seconded by Commissioner Piket, to table action on this item to the May 28, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Public hearing Mr. Corrow stated the applicant is requesting a planned unit development concept stage plan, development stage plan, Hennessey Grove rezoning, preliminary and final plat for the purpose of developing Centra Homes, LLC a 14 lot residential subdivision on two adjacent parcels located in the southwest portion of the city, near Maple Grove Parkway and 68th Avenue North. The combined 9.8 acre site borders the Cedarcrest neighborhood to the north, and the Cedar Estates  Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 6 neighborhood to the east. A proposed extension of Kimberly Lane 17302 68th Avenue North will connect these neighborhoods to 68th Avenue North. North and 17424 68th Staff discussed the plans in further detail and made the following Avenue North recommendation. Planned unit STAFF RECOMMENDATION: development concept stage plan, development Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City stage plan, rezoning, Attorney to draft a resolution and a planned unit development preliminary and final plat agreement approving the Hennessey Grove planned unit for the purpose of development concept stage plan, development stage plan, constructing 14 single preliminary and final plat subject to: family detached homes 1. Any grading work taking place on neighboring private properties will be limited to the boundaries of the existing drainage and utility easement. Areas impacted by this grading work will be restored, by the developer, as closely as possible to its original condition. Including replacing sod, irrigation, fencing, trees, shrubs, etc. 2. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the city any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: a. The Engineering Department dated April 19, 2024 b. The Parks & Recreation Department dated May 7, 2024 Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance approving the rezoning from R-A (Single-Family Agricultural District) to R-2 PUD (Single Family Residential District -Planned Unit Development). 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 asked if the easement that would be granted would be used for utilities and a trail. Mr. Corrow reported this was the Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 7 case. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Paul Tibone, Central Homes, thanked staff for the detailed presentation and thanked the Commission for considering his request. He discussed how he has worked to protect the wetlands and woodlands on this property. He reported no HOA was planned for this development, which meant each lot would be an individual lot. He explained he would appreciate the Commission’s support and noted he was available for questions. Chair Lamothe opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. The public was asked by Chair Lamothe if they had any comments to make regarding this application. Heather Lateral, 17347 69th Avenue, stated she lived to the north. She explained she had concerns with drainage and the trail easement. She indicated the major grading work that would have to be done was a concern to her as well. She wanted to better understand what the new homes would look like and if they would compare to her neighborhood. Laura Carlson, 17250 68th Avenue North, explained the west side of her backyard was the wetland. She reported she was concerned with putting a house on the wetland and that her basement would flood. She questioned why the developer was able to build on the wetland. She believed this area should be protected. She stated she would like to see the wetland area with the wildlife protected. Betsy Young, 17251 68th Place North, stated this plan is different than what was originally presented to her. She indicated she was concerned about how many trees were being lost on the east edge of the development. She feared there would be no buffer between her property and Lot 10. She explained she supported the previously alignment of the homes because more buffer trees could be saved. Cindy Leecy, 6926 Holly Lane North, stated she was concerned with the proposed value of the new homes. She explained after speaking with the developer she understood the new homes would start at $600,000. She commented she was also concerned Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 8 about the loss of the existing tree buffer because this provided significant value to her neighborhood and would assist in keeping home values up. Motion by Chair Lamothe, seconded by Commissioner Lenthe, to close the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Chair Lamothe stated he would be interested in reviewing the previous plans the neighbor had for this development. Ms. Young provided Chair Lamothe with her copy of the plans for this development. She reported she received these plans for this land from a realtor in October. Mr. Corrow indicated he had not seen these plans before and reported this was not a recorded plat. Chair Lamothe asked if staff was aware of a ghost plat for this area. Mr. Corrow stated he was not aware of a ghost plat. Mr. Vickerman commented there may have been a ghost plat from 2006 or 2007. Mr. Tibone reported the plan presented by Ms. Young was an outdated site plan from 2014. He commented further on the storm basins that would be installed to assist with addressing water concerns. He reported he would not be building or impacting the wetlands. He stated he would look at savings trees where possible. He explained the homes price points would begin at the mid-$600,000’s and would be comparable to the homes to the east. He indicated if the basements within the homes were finished the value of the homes would be higher. Commissioner Piket questioned how the water would flow through this site. Mr. Tibone noted the location of the stormwater pond and reviewed how water would flow through this site. He reviewed the row of trees that would be preserved. Commissioner Lenthe asked if the developer was concerned about having the basement floor at the same elevation as the wetland. Mr. Tibone indicated the home would be several feet higher than the wetland. Commissioner Ayika inquired if the developer had an open house with the neighbors. Mr. Tibone reported he did not have an open Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 9 house given the scale of the project, but noted he did send out mailers notifying the neighbors of the proposed development. Commissioner Ayika stated he believed it was very important for developers to hold a neighborhood meeting. He commented on how most of the neighbors’ questions would have been answered if the developer had taken the time to meet with the neighbors prior to this meeting. He questioned if there would be any impact on the surrounding wetlands. Mr. Corrow explained the project would have no impact on the wetlands. Commissioner Klein asked if the developer had to provide mock ups of what the homes would look like from the street. Mr. Corrow stated this development was not large enough for this to be a requirement. Commissioner Klein questioned if there was any requirements in place to ensure the homes would look a certain way. Mr. Corrow stated there were not architectural requirements. Commissioner Ostaffe explained the proposed homes were similar to the homes south of the power line and would range in price from $600,000 to $650,000. He noted there would be a power line separating the homes that were $700,000+. Chair Lamothe noted the Planning Commission received a letter from Ms. Knight and should be included in the record. Commissioner Lenthe indicated he read this letter earlier and he understood Ms. Knight would like the developer to build 8 houses instead of 14. He commented on how the developer has the right to build and maximize the property while following city ordinances. Commissioner Klein asked if the city could have received a plan that impacted the wetlands. Mr. Corrow indicated this could have occurred, but noted this plan before the Commission had no impacts on the wetlands. Motion by Commissioner Piket, seconded by Commissioner Tomlinson, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution and a planned unit development  Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 10 agreement approving the Hennessey Grove planned unit development concept stage plan, development stage plan, preliminary and final plat subject to: 1. Any grading work taking place on neighboring private properties will be limited to the boundaries of the existing drainage and utility easement. Areas impacted by this grading work will be restored, by the developer, as closely as possible to its original condition. Including replacing sod, irrigation, fencing, trees, shrubs, etc. 2. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the city any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: a. The Engineering Department dated April 19, 2024 b. The Parks & Recreation Department dated May 7, 2024 Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Lenthe, seconded by Commissioner Tomlinson, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance approving the rezoning from R-A (Single-Family Agricultural District) to R-2 PUD (Single Family Residential District -Planned Unit Development). 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 Lamothe, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Public hearing Mr. Vickerman stated in 2023 cannabis businesses were legalized in Minnesota with retail sales expected to begin in the first Zoning ordinance text quarter of 2025. This action has a number of provisions that need amendment - Cannabis to be addressed in city code: • Identified a number of different cannabis-related Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 11 business types that would be licensed by the state • Required municipalities to properly zone for these types of businesses • Allowed cities to limit the number of businesses with a retail endorsement to one per 12,500 residents • Allowed for buffers around specific uses for cannabis businesses with a retail endorsement, i.e., where the public may purchase cannabis directly • Allowed cities to create a registration system for certain cannabis businesses • Addressed signage for cannabis businesses Staff discussed the plans in further detail and made the following recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance amending city code regarding cannabis businesses. Discussion Commissioner Piket asked if the city was bringing this forward because they want these types of businesses or because we have to have a plan in place based on statute. Mr. Vickerman reported statute allows these businesses everywhere, which meant the city was responsible for putting zoning requirements in place. Commissioner Piket inquired if Maple Grove could state they do not want cannabis businesses in the city. Mr. Vickerman stated he did not believe this would be allowed. City Attorney Landsman explained the way statute reads, the city can control the use through zoning, but cannot prohibit. Commissioner Ostaffe indicated the governor signed a bill that made this use legal in Maple Grove. He stated he understood this use would be licensed at the state level. He expressed concern with how this use would be properly regulated by the city. Mr. Vickerman reported it was his understanding the use would be licensed by the state. Commissioner Tomlinson asked if staff reached out to neighboring Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 12 communities to see how they were addressing this use. Mr. Vickerman explained he has had other communities reaching out to him, but noted not a lot has been done on this topic. Commissioner Lenthe stated in reviewing the map, it appears the city already has six or seven cannabis licenses in place. Mr. Vickerman reported these licenses were for low potency cannabis products. He noted these licenses were typically at gas stations, liquor stores or tobacco stores. He commented further on where the low potency uses could be located in Maple Grove. He further discussed the five different types of cannabis businesses that could be located in the community. Commissioner Lenthe inquired if the proposed ordinance would limit the number of cannabis retail sales to six. Mr. Vickerman reported this was the case. Commissioner Klein stated she was concerned with the fact there were only six locations the cannabis retail sales businesses could located and presently these locations all had tenants. She was of the opinion this was not the state’s intent and the city should have broader language for the cannabis retail sales sites. Mr. Vickerman stated of the six locations, the city was uncertain if these property owners would lease to a cannabis retail store. Commissioner Klein reported Maple Grove has a lot of great retail in community and she did not want the city to miss out on an opportunity to add cannabis sales to the community. Commissioner Ayika asked where cannabis could be used in the community. Mr. Vickerman commented the city has a prohibition of smoking cannabis on city-owned parking lots, streets, sidewalks and parks. He reported cannabis micro-businesses would allow use on site. He further discussed how the proposed ordinance was responding to state law. He commented on how cannabis could be impacted if federal law were to change with a different administration. Commissioner Tomlinson inquired if visitors on outdoor patio areas at restaurants would now be allowed to smoke marijuana. Mr. Vickerman reported this decision would remain with the private property owner. Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 13 Commissioner Ostaffe questioned if any low potency license holders have requested a full potency cannabis license. Mr. Vickerman stated this could not occur until after January 1, 2025. Commissioner Ostaffe asked if any property owners have asked to have a full potency marijuana shop. Mr. Vickerman indicated he has not had any conversations with property owners. City Attorney Landsman commented further on how full potency cannabis license holders will be responsible for meeting state rules and regulations (which were not in place yet), along with local ordinances. Commissioner Klein requested further information regarding cannabis signage. Mr. Vickerman discussed the proposed regulations for cannabis signage. He noted the cannabis businesses would be limited to two signs. Commissioner Ostaffe stated he would like to restrict cannabis businesses from marketing or having sales in parks during any Maple Grove festivals. City Attorney Landsman commented on how the state was working to get the Office of Cannabis Management in place in order to address the licensing and regulations for full potency cannabis. He stated once this office is up and running, city staff would be able to answer more questions and have more information when it comes to full potency cannabis. Commissioner Klein questioned if the City of Maple Grove were to institute this ordinance and then the model code comes out from the state, would city staff review the model code and make amendments. Mr. Vickerman reported this would be the case, noting staff was doing the best they could with the information they had at this time. He indicated if and when a model ordinance were brought about from the state, the city can make amendments to its ordinance. Commissioner Klein asked what the worst case scenario would be if the city did not have a cannabis ordinance in place by January 1, 2025. Mr. Vickerman stated a full potency cannabis shop could be opened in Maple Grove and it would have to be grandfathered in once an ordinance was put in place.  Maple Grove Planning Commission May 13, 2024 Page 14 Commissioner Klein thanked staff for all of their efforts on this ordinance. She was pleased this item was coming before the Commission in May rather than November. She was of the opinion the regulations should be more expansive than restrictive. Motion by Commissioner Ayika, seconded by Commissioner Klein, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance amending city code regarding cannabis businesses. Commissioner Piket stated he understood it was inevitable that these businesses were coming to Maple Grove, but he would be voting no as more of a protest vote, given the fact legislators in St. Paul keep telling communities what they have to do. Commissioner Ostaffe indicated he felt much the same way. Chair Lamothe reported the legislative session was slated to end in just over a week. He questioned if there were any bills proposed that would impact cannabis sales. Mr. Vickerman stated he was not aware of additional any cannabis bills. Councilmember Barnett explained the City Council did advocate for local control on this matter but the City Council was not heard. Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were five ayes and two nays (Commissioners Ostaffe and Piket opposed). Motion carried. Discussion items There were no discussion items. Adjournment Motion by Chair Lamothe, seconded by Commissioner Tomlinson, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Chair Lamothe adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for May 28, 2024.