Planning Commission

Maple Grove Planning Commission meeting minutes September 9, 2024 Call to order A meeting of the Maple Grove Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. on September 9, 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, Lorie Klein, Chuck Lenthe, Michael Ostaffe, Joe Piket and Stephanie Tomlinson. Present also were Peter Vickerman, Planning 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 – July 29, 2024 B. 9201 and 9211 Forestview Lane North Short Plat – TABLED C. 7102 Trenton Lane North Variance – TABLED D. Elm Creek Vista Planned Unit Development Concept Stage Plan, Development Stage Plan, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat – TABLED E. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – Two Stall Garage Requirements - TABLED Motion by Commissioner Ayika, seconded by Commissioner Klein, to approve the Consent Items as presented. Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Consideration of items None. pulled from consent agenda  Maple Grove Planning Commission September 9, 2024 Page 2 Update on city council Mr. Vickerman reviewed with the Commission what items the City meeting Council approved that was given direction at the Planning Commission level. OLD BUSINESS No items to present. NEW BUSINESS Public hearing Mr. Vickerman stated the applicant is proposing a freeway frontage development stage plan in order to replace the existing Minnesota Rural Electric building, garage and parking area on site with a new two-story, Association freeway 13,454 square foot building and parking lot. The site constrained frontage development by overhead power lines from the adjacent substation and is stage plan somewhat hidden from view due to grades and vegetation along the on-ramp from Hemlock Lane to I-94/694. The proposed building sits on the northern portion of the site (the only buildable area due to the power line easements), with the parking lot on the south and east sides of the site. The proposal meets all setback and parking requirements (57 stalls are provided whereas 44 are required by code). Architecturally the south and east sides are showing a combination of windows, EIFS, decorative metal, and Nichiha fiber cement panels. The north and west sides are proposed to be all EIFS of similar colors as the south and east sides. 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 a resolution and a planned unit development agreement approving the Minnesota Rural Electric Association freeway frontage development 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 and Economic Development Department dated September 4, 2024 b. The Engineering Department dated August 16, 2024 c. The Parks & Recreation Department dated August 16, Maple Grove Planning Commission September 9, 2024 Page 3 2024 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. There were no questions for the applicant. Motion by Commissioner Ayika, seconded by Commissioner Lenthe, to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution and a planned unit development agreement approving the Minnesota Rural Electric Association freeway frontage development 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 and Economic Development Department dated September 4, 2024 b. The Engineering Department dated August 16, 2024 c. The Parks & Recreation Department dated August 16, 2024 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. Commissioners Lenthe indicated he was not impressed with the architecture on this building. He was of the opinion the exterior of the building was not all that inspiring. He asked what EIFS was. Mr. Vickerman reported this was a concrete, smooth face finish. He explained EIFS was a pretty common finish in this part of the City. Commissioner Tomlinson stated she had the same concerns regarding the architecture for this building. She indicated this Maple Grove Planning Commission September 9, 2024 Page 4 building has no character at all. Commissioner Ostaffe believed the proposed building was an upgrade to what was there currently. He appreciated that this company was looking to remain in the community. He indicated he was not an architect and noted this building would be adjacent to the freeway and transformer farm. Chair Lamothe discussed what was being done on the north side of the freeway noting there was appealing architecture. He questioned if the top of this building would be visible from the freeway. Mr. Vickerman stated he had conversations with the applicant, noting additional windows on the north side were discussed. He anticipated it would be difficult to see the building from the north side of the freeway but may be visible from the south side. Chair Lamothe questioned how staff compares this building to the buildings that have been approved on the north side of the freeway. He commented on how appealing the Keller Williams building was from the freeway. He asked how the proposed building compares in terms of quality of building materials. Mr. Vickerman stated the building materials were similar, but the Keller Williams building may have more brick. He indicated some of the newer buildings have tip up EIFS panels, while the Boston Scientific building has metal. He commented there was a range of building materials that have been used along the corridor and reiterated that this building was not as visible from the freeway. Commissioner Piket stated this building was very similar to the early learning center that was constructed on Wedgewood and the Planning Commission supported that building. Commissioner Ostaffe reported everything that has been built to the east of Lowe’s was constructed out of concrete tip up panels. He indicated the proposed building would be more of the same. He stated the childcare center was constructed in a similar manner and the Commission fully supported that project in an industrial setting. Chair Lamothe asked if the applicant wanted to address the Planning Commission.  Maple Grove Planning Commission September 9, 2024 Page 5 Melissa Sagovich, Director of Finance at MREA, introduced herself to the Commission. She explained MREA has been housed in Maple Grove since the late 1980’s. She reported her organization was a non-profit that was 100% member owned. She indicated her staff loves working in Maple Grove. Jennifer Kaden, Kaden Architecture, introduced herself to the Commission and discussed how MREA, as a non-profit, was looking to construct a building that reflected its rural clients. She reviewed the exterior renderings in further detail and thanked the group for the Commission for their consideration. Commissioner Lenthe explained the residents driving on 73rd Avenue would see this building while those driving on I-94 would not. He encouraged the developer to place awnings on the windows or to find some other way to breakup and enhance the elevations. Ms. Kaden reported there was a canopy over the front entrance that sticks out 10 to 12 feet. Commissioner Ostaffe questioned how many employees MREA had. Ms. Sagovich explained MREA currently has 15 employees. Commissioner Ayika inquired if MREA would be the sole occupant of this building. Ms. Sagovich reported this was the case. Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Public hearing Mr. Vickerman stated the applicant is requesting a planned unit development concept stage plan amendment, development stage Norheim Maple Grove plan and preliminary plat approval for 53 rental townhomes planned unit instead of the conceptual 200-unit apartment building in the development concept Nörsq Maple Grove development. The applicant received PUD stage plan amendment, approval in October of 2023 for 155 rental townhomes which are development stage plan, currently under construction. In addition, a site in the northwest and preliminary plat corner was approved for 200 apartments and a site in the southwest corner was approved for a retail building. The applicant has stated in their narrative that providing the required parking for the apartment building on the site was proving to be economically unviable and so they are proposing to change this portion of the project to 53 additional rental townhomes. The conceptual retail building is not proposing to change. We note Maple Grove Planning Commission September 9, 2024 Page 6 that, per the applicant, the amenities proposed (clubhouse, pool, fitness center, playground, etc.) were oversized to account for 200 units at the apartment site so there will ample private amenities for the additional 53 units. We also note as part of this proposal, the proposed dog park is shifting locations. Staff has no major issues with the proposed change as it is fewer units overall and essentially extends the original plan into the area in question. Additional guest parking is provided, and the overall traffic impacts are now lower. The overall density is within the range set in the mixed-use development land use guiding. 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 a resolution and a planned unit development agreement approving the Norheim Maple Grove planned unit development concept stage plan amendment, 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. The Community & Economic Development Department dated August 15, 2024 b. The Engineering Department dated August 16, 2024 c. The Building Department dated August 8, 2024 d. The Parks & Recreation Department dated September 4, 2024 The applicant shall acknowledge that park dedication requirements are based on staff review and recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Board and their subsequent board action. Board meetings are held on the third Thursday of each month. Discussion Commissioner Piket requested further information regarding the parking challenges. Mr. Vickerman stated with the 200 unit apartment building, one of the requirements was for the Maple Grove Planning Commission September 9, 2024 Page 7 developer to provide two parking spaces per unit. He indicated the developer was finding it would be difficult to make this work on the smaller site. For this reason, the developer was proposing to more townhomes. Chair Lamothe stated the apartment building parking standards would have required the developer to create a multi-level underground parking structure, which would have been quite expensive. Mr. Vickerman explained this was often what the City has seen with smaller sites that have apartment buildings. Commissioner Piket inquired if staff could review the old concept plan in order to provide further information on what had changed. Mr. Vickerman reviewed the previous concept plan in further detail with the Commission and noted the changes within the new plans for the site. Commissioner Ostaffe expressed concern with the new proposal noting there was very little guest parking. Mr. Vickerman reviewed the location and number of guest parking spaces that were proposed, noting nine guest parking spaces would be provided. Commissioner Ostaffe indicated there were concerns with the lack of guest parking with the previous plan for this property and the developer now had even fewer guest parking spaces per unit within the new development. Chair Lamothe questioned how much guest parking was included within the apartment complex. Mr. Vickerman stated the developer would have had to provide two parking spaces per unit, which would have been used by both tenants and guests. He explained the City did not have guest parking requirements within City Code. Commissioner Ostaffe recalled there were only 23 guest surface parking stalls that would have been provided, which was very few for an apartment complex with 200 units. He indicated he still had parking concerns for this development given the fact this was a high density neighborhood. He did not believe the nine guest parking stalls would meet the needs of the 53 housing units. Mr. Vickerman commented there would be parking spaces in front of the garages for each unit. Maple Grove Planning Commission September 9, 2024 Page 8 Chair Lamothe questioned if this property would be managed by the developer. Mr. Vickerman stated that was his understanding. Chair Lamothe reported if this was the case, the management team would have the ability to govern the space in front of the garage for these rental units. He stated he agreed with Commissioner Ostaffe that guest parking was a concern, and he wanted to see garages being used as garages and not as storage units. Mr. Vickerman stated he would allow the applicant to speak to this. Commissioner Tomlinson questioned where the snow would be stored within this development. She feared the visitor parking would be overrun with snow in the winter months. Mr. Vickerman reviewed the snow storage plan that was provided by the applicant. He reiterated that if there was not enough space, developers typically haul the snow off site. Commissioner Ostaffe asked what control the City had over snow storage and when it had to be removed from the site. Mr. Vickerman stated the expectation would be that no guest parking stalls were used for snow storage. He indicated if there were issues or complaints, the City would have to visit the site to ensure lanes were clear for emergency access. Commissioner Ostaffe explained many townhome associations are run by HOA’s. However, he noted this townhome association would be run by a management organization that would be responsible for ensuring the snow was properly cleared. Commissioner Tomlinson indicated there has been a lot of talk in the community about housing in the middle. She asked what the price point would be for these townhome units. She stated she did not want the price point to be too high for Maple Grove residents. Mr. Vickerman explained he would let the applicant speak to this. Commissioner Piket expressed concern with how the shift away from the apartments to townhomes would create higher rental rates. He commented on how difficult it was to get workers in the community given how expensive housing was in Maple Grove. He discussed how the previously proposed apartments would be cheaper than townhomes. He was of the opinion the City needed Maple Grove Planning Commission September 9, 2024 Page 9 more apartments in the community. Commissioner Ostaffe stated he had concerns with the fact 150 families would now not have the opportunity to put down roots in Maple Grove because this development has moved away from the original plan of 200 apartments and has shifted to 53 townhomes. He indicated the City was not building affordable townhomes, which meant it would be increasingly difficult for young families to move into the community. Commissioner Lenthe indicated he was concerned about this development from the beginning because there was so little greenspace. He reported when the apartment complex was proposed, there would have been a little bit of greenspace, however with the townhomes, this greenspace has been eliminated. He stated he would not be supporting this change, and he asked the developer to reconsider his plans for this site. He explained he would like to see a smaller apartment building on this site. Commissioner Ostaffe agreed with Commission Lenthe’s concerns regarding greenspace. He commented on how there was very little room for families to be outside within the proposed townhome development. The applicant was at the meeting to answer questions. Jeff Cook, Norsq Companies, introduced himself to the Commission. He explained each unit would have four parking stalls available, which meant the development had a total of 228 parking stalls. He reviewed the parking that was available within the Norsq project and indicated this would be the most overparked development in the City of Maple Grove. He stated he understood the concerns of the Commission when it comes to parking and reported the garages would be 24 feet deep in order to accommodate larger vehicles along with garbage containers. In addition, he noted the driveways would be 22 to 25 feet deep. He indicated the concept before the Commission was for 53 units versus 200 units, which would require less parking and traffic counts. He commented on the snow removal plan for the development and noted the management company would oversee snow removal in a prompt fashion. He reviewed the proposed rental rates noting the two bedrooms will rent for Maple Grove Planning Commission September 9, 2024 Page 10 $2,685 and the three bedroom units will rent for $3,130. He discussed the proposed density for this property and noted he could pack more units onto this site, but this would bring more parking and traffic concerns. He indicated the proposed dog park was 30% larger within this plan and noted this development would also have a tot lot, pickleball court along with trails to access local City parks. He commented further on how a diverse housing stock would meet the needs of the community. He stated the proposed rental townhomes would be geared towards families and active adults. Commissioner Picket asked if the developer looked at reducing the number of apartment units in order to meet the City’s parking requirements. Mr. Cook stated he had considered this, but noted inflation and interest rates were making the costs for a pre-cast parking structure not economically viable. Chair Lamothe opened the public hearing at 7:59 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 Picket, to close the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were seven ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Picket, 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 Norheim Maple Grove planned unit development concept stage plan amendment, 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. The Community & Economic Development Department dated August 15, 2024 b. The Engineering Department dated August 16, 2024 Maple Grove Planning Commission September 9, 2024 Page 11 c. The Building Department dated August 8, 2024 d. The Parks & Recreation Department dated September 4, 2024 The applicant shall acknowledge that park dedication requirements are based on staff review and recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Board and their subsequent board action. Board meetings are held on the third Thursday of each month. Chair Lamothe requested the applicant speak to how the rental agreements speak to the use of the garage. Mr. Cook explained the rental agreements to not speak specifically to the use of the garage. Commissioner Piket inquired if the rental agreement requires vehicles to be located in garages and not permanently stored on driveways. Mr. Cook stated there was no language that spoke to this specifically. Commissioner Tomlinson asked if the rental agreement spoke to the use of portable storage units being stored on driveways. Mr. Cook indicated the general management agreement had specificities to address this concern. Commissioner Ostaffe questioned if the management team would be responsible for removing snow from driveways. Mr. Cook reported this was the case. Commissioner Ostaffe anticipated it would be difficult to remove snow from the three bedroom units if there were roommate situations and multiple cars were located on the driveways. Mr. Cook explained renters would be notified by text when snow would be removed from the driveways after a major snow event. Chair Lamothe indicated he did not support having the rental agreements not speak to the use of garages specifically for parking. He discussed how the three bedroom units may have three vehicles which would become problematic if the garages were not used for parking, especially in the winter months. Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were three ayes and four nays (Commissioners Tomlinson, Lenthe, Ostaffe  Maple Grove Planning Commission September 9, 2024 Page 12 and Chair Lamothe opposed). Motion failed. Motion by Chair Lamothe, seconded by Commissioner Lenthe, to recommend the City Council deny a planned unit development agreement approving the Norheim Maple Grove planned unit development concept stage plan amendment, development stage plan, and preliminary plat based on the concerns regarding parking and snow storage. Commissioner Ayika stated the Commission has not tried to require parking in garages instead of on driveways in other townhome developments. Commissioner Piket indicated the City may not regulate vehicle parking, but the HOA’s may address this matter. Commissioner Ayika explained the applicant has met the City’s requirements and he supported the project moving forward. Upon call of the motion by Chair Lamothe, there were four ayes and three nays (Commissioner Klein, Ayika and Piket opposed). Motion carried. Discussion items There were no discussion items. Adjournment Motion by Chair Lamothe, seconded by Commissioner Ayika, 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 8:12 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for October 14, 2024.