All the Maple Grove Planning Commission for June 22nd, 2026 to order. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. And to the. Since you. He is all we’re doing justice. Our. Let it be noted. We’ve got all seven Planning Commission members present and accounted for at the beginning of the meeting. Um, I’ll move on to our first item of business this evening. And that is, uh, approval of the consent agenda. The only thing on our consent agenda is the minutes from our last meeting on May 11th. Do I have a motion? Motion by Commissioner Bristol. Do I have a second? Second. By Commissioner Pavic. Um. All in favor, say aye. Aye, aye. Opposed? Motion passes 7 to 0. Now on to our next item of business this evening. And that is an update on the last city council meeting or meetings and workshop. Uh, Council member Donegal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since the last planning meeting, May 10th, Council has met three times at the May 18th City Council meeting. Council approved the Fern Brook Caesar Senior Housing Comprehensive Plan amendment that you recommended to us in your May 10th meeting. We also adopted the zoning ordinance text amendment minus the ground cover requirements, which you ask staff to take online and research more for a future amendment. We are very happy to welcome members of the Arbor Committee to Council Chambers and learn more about the process they went through for the past nine years or so to bring us to this point. We’re excited for what this ordinance change will mean for the survivability of trees in our parking lots, new developments and enforcement in the city to ensure we have the most vibrant and robust tree canopy possible. At our June 1st meeting, we enjoyed a presentation from the Maple Grove Ambassadors. Both our current ambassadors and the candidates who will be competing in the coming weeks, culminating with the coronation of the 2020 627 ambassadors July 17th, which is the Friday of Maple Grove days. Since being on council, I’ve come to appreciate what this program does for young women in the community. It is not a beauty pageant as some would assume. It is a year plus learning experience. If you include their candidacy and becoming better public speakers. Being able to work together as a team represent our city with grace and poise, all while managing a very hectic calendar. I often tell the young ladies that the rigor of their calendars rivals mine, and I’ve been working my entire life to manage the demands of public service. I’m also twice their age, so what they’re doing is extremely impressive. Mr. chair’s daughter was one of our ambassadors a couple of years ago, and I’m sure he can attest to how beneficial this program is for the young women in our community. At our June 15th City Council meeting, we first had a work session to review the fire Department comprehensive study. We received data from Fitch and Associates, LLC and Chief Zsigmond about the steps we need to take to ensure our fire services are financially sustainable and meeting the needs for our growing community for years to come. At our regular council meeting, we saw a new police officers man in the air as well as administered the oath of office for K-9 Gus, whose partner is Officer Zach Hanson, who has been with us since 2020. My colleagues and I were delighted to attend their graduation at the Saint Paul Canine Academy. Gus is a very energetic German Shepherd Belgian mix. He signed his oath of office with paw prints and needless to say, he is a very good boy. Mr. Chair and commissioners, we’ve also had a busy past few weeks in the community with a lifetime fitness groundbreaking and chalk fest last weekend, June 13th and 14th, and then Juneteenth on Friday evening, where we had some very unfortunate weather. I hope everyone has had a chance to get down to experience some of these festivities. And for Chalk Fest this year, the event had moved down Main Street a bit to start at the block of three squares and the Government Center and extended all the way to the library. The move gave us more length and more width or breathing room, so that people could move about more freely. We also added more food trucks than in prior years in our public safety display was bigger than before with a great showing of our staff participating. Multiple police and fire vehicles and equipment for children and the big kids sometimes called adults too. In prior years, this event was managed by the Maple Grove Business Association. Since they’re no longer in operation, the Maple Grove Arts Center took over the planning and organization, and they were assisted by many other community partners, which made a huge success. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, for the chance to give you an update. Thank you. Council member, for that report. And I do appreciate as you do things like Chalk Fest, I was impressed with the new location for the things that you mentioned, and I don’t know if it was because of those reasons or the beautiful weather we had for that weekend. It just seemed to be a lot more people than we’ve had in past years. There was a very nice crowd that was out there. For those who may have been able to attend that. And yes, the ambassadors program that the city sponsors is a wonderful program, and I definitely think it helped my daughter landed an internship with a congresswoman this summer. So, um, a great program. I’m looking forward to coronation this year again. Um, any questions for the council member on her report from the body? All right. Not seeing any. Thank you again. Uh, we’ll move on to our next item of business. We have no items of old business tonight. We have one item of new business. Uh, put in Maple Grove. Senior living DSP. And that item is Mr. Karros. But before we get to Mr. Caro this evening, he can come up. Um, we need a motion to remove from the table. Do I have a motion from the body? Commissioner Lindsay with a motion. Do I have a second? Second. By Commissioner Marsh. Any discussion? Not seeing any. I’ll call the question. All in favor of removing it from the table? Say, I, I. All opposed. Motion passes 7 to 0. Now, the floor is yours, Mr. Karl. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the commission. Uh, the applicant. Applicant tonight is requesting a development stage plan approval for a 195 unit senior living development located along Arbor Ridge Parkway near 101st Avenue. The site is approximately ten acres in size and is located near the intersection of Niagara Lane and Arbor Ridge Parkway, directly across from the Summer well neighborhood. Um. There is a separate four acre outlet located east of the east of the project that is planned for future office and commercial development. They are proposing to essentially subdivide out lot B from from the larger property and reserve that for future development. The site is guided mixed use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which supports high density residential, including senior housing. Earlier, earlier this year, the City Council approved a concept plan for this site, establishing senior housing as an appropriate use and allowing the applicant to proceed with the development stage review. The proposal, as you can see on the map here, includes some minor adjustments to the northern property line, eliminating excess right of way along Arbor Ridge Parkway. That’s the tan area shown on the map. The applicant is also requesting to vacate a portion of the Ranch View Road right of way along the Western property line. This area is no longer needed for roadway purposes. That area is shown in green and then the blue portion of that corridor would remain public to accommodate both an emergency vehicle access to the south and future trail connection from 101st Avenue Avenue all the way up to 105th Avenue. Looking at the site plan, the development consists of approximately 260,000ft of building area. The large primary building includes independent living, assisted living and memory care buildings connected through shared amenity spaces. There are 74 independent living units. Um, contained within a four story building. That is the blue shaded area here on the west side. There are 73 assisted living units in a two story building. This is the darker green area of the building towards the back, as well as 36 memory care units. Uh, towards the front of the building in the lighter green shaded areas. In addition, there are 12 townhomes on the property. Um, these are on the western property edge, as well as the southern property edge. Um, uh, designated for an independent living style townhomes. Uh, amenities would include outdoor gathering spaces, a dog park, a secure courtyard within the memory care building. There are two primary access points that are proposed on Arbor Ridge Parkway. The eastern access point would provide a shared access for future development to the east. Um, shown down here by my cursor. There is also an emergency access road and public trail connection that will be located within the existing ranch view right of way. As I mentioned before, uh, extending to the south down to 101st Avenue. Um, included it here on the second half of the map. This is the south of the site plan. You were just looking at. Um, so this area would include an emergency vehicle access coming from 101st Avenue as well. It would double as a trail, a public pedestrian trail extending all the way north to 105th. And then future development would lead to the trail extending around the large wetland to the west. And really throughout the, uh, throughout the future development area. The applicant provided a parking exhibit. Uh, city code requires one parking space to be reserved for each senior living unit, although only half of those spaces are required to be constructed initially. The applicant is proposing 183 total parking spaces, with 164 constructed immediately and nine proof of parking spaces would be reserved for future construction if needed. The 12 townhome units can hold up to four parking spaces on their own, and are intended to provide On-Site parking for their own visitors. The um. The parking exhibit also provides 39 employee parking spaces for the estimated 30 daytime staff. Um and city staff finds the parking supply appropriate, given the nature of the senior living development. Uh, we’ll take a look at the wetland on the property. Um, the the project is located to a large wetland to the west. Uh, although and the applicant is proposing not to impact that wetland and staff has offered a reduced, uh, ten foot buffer around the wetland in certain areas just to accommodate the, uh, fire access lane on the west side of the building, as I’ll get to in a minute. Um, as well as it accommodates some some public walking, uh, sidewalk trails as well. But the building and primary grading still meet the, uh, the wetland buffer. Um, the property is also located in a T zone or a tree. Preservation. Preservation overlay district, uh, where 16 of the 27 protected trees are proposed for removal to accommodate the development. Because the tree removal removal does exceed 50%. Uh, established in the city code, the applicant is providing 12 replacement trees to satisfy the zone requirements. So they would add 12 trees to their landscape plan to offset the, uh, the amount of trees they’re taking. Since it is over 50%. Take a look at take a look at the landscape plan. Uh, in addition to the, sorry, 11 existing trees that will be saved, the landscape and plan plan includes 91 overstory trees and 26 ornamental trees throughout the the site. Um, they are providing six more than is required. So, uh, and that includes the 12 additional from the tree. Um, the t zone, uh, penalties as well. So they are six more trees than they would be required. Uh, new, new landscaping is concentrated along Arbor Lakes Parkway, uh, providing some nice screening and. I can move on to architecture. The staff does find the architecture to be high quality and consistent with the residential character envisioned in this area. They provided some elevations as well. Um, and as I mentioned before, the four storey apartment building would be on the west side of the property. This is an image that would be from Arbor Lakes Parkway. Um, looking at the primary entrance area, that that is somewhat setback, uh, providing parking. Uh, in the interior there and then on the east side of the building would be the memory care, um, facility portion of the building. All right. The Planning Commission is also asked to make a recommendation on a requested fire code. Variance. The fire code requires an aerial apparatus access road along the full length of one one side of the building. Due to wetland buffer constraints, the access road falls approximately 25ft short of the required building length. And I can zoom in on this area. So the fire apparatus access road continues along the west side of the building, but stops about 25ft short of the corner of the building. Uh, where code would require it to to extend the full length. Um, we are running into the wetland and wetland buffer, uh, along that side. So a variance is requested. Uh, for the the shortfall there. Um, staff is is supportive of the request provided the intent of the code and life saved safety objectives, of course, are are being met. Uh, we do have Bill Halden, our deputy fire chief of prevention, uh, on hand to speak about the variance request any further and to answer any questions you have. Um, overall, staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The concept stage plan, and the vision of the 105th Avenue area. Remaining issues are rather technical and and minor, and can be addressed through the conditions of approval. Uh staff is recommending approval of the development stage plan, rezoning, preliminary plat and the fire code variance. Uh, with that, the applicant is here tonight as well, and I’m happy to stand for any questions that you may have on the proposal. Thank you, Mr. Corral. Um, before we get to the applicant, is there any questions for staff? Commissioner. Mr. chair, as I was looking at this proposal and the issue of the variance for the for the fire access road, I started looking and thinking about this wetland complex. And, uh, I spoke with Derek Ashby about it, for one, and he indicated that it’s a, a poor quality wetland. And, uh, so in my mind, I was thinking that we could do something. Frankly, I’d like to propose something entirely different with that wetland complex, whether it was changed to a type one, which would be a wooded swamp type wetland or a, uh, possibly even a type two, but something different than the the poor quality wetland that exists. Uh, subsequent to that discussion, I also talked a little bit with the applicant and understand that they have tried. Uh, so, uh, I would I would like to seek any input from the commissioners while it relative to how strongly they feel about the, uh, maintaining the wetland as it is. Uh, my view would be to have something that’s in that area. Uh, that is, rather than simply old reed canary grass that really inhibits, uh, inhibits anything of a reasonable appearance. Uh, do something different with it. And that’s what I would support. But at the same time, I’d like to hear from the applicant about what they’ve tried so far. And, and how that might, uh, provide us with additional update as to what’s occurred with with that. And it would seem to me, quite frankly, that if, uh, if we modified that wetland to a great extent, uh, improving it. Uh, there are certainly engineering companies and companies associated with wetland management and design that could, uh, that could speak to those same additional issues. It could be improved. And we got a lot of trails, a lot of sidewalk. Uh, areas that the occupants of this area will be using. And if we could do something better with that complex, than what it is right now. Uh, I, I’m encouraging us to consider that. So, uh, you can respond in the applicant. Respond. Thank you. Sure. Yeah. Thank you for the comments. Uh, staff and the applicant. We. And I’ll let the applicant speak to their their side. We did look at the an option of that. Um, we felt that this was a viable plan. Um, preserving the existing wetland as it is. Um, not encroaching on the buffer regulations that there are. Um, in addition, there is a wetland banking project on the the opposite side of Ranch View. So this current wetland was was likely part of the larger wetland to the west. And when the Ranch View Road right of way came in, um, kind of subdivided that in half. Um, so restorative efforts are in place on the other side of the the primary walking path here. Um, with that, I mean, I can I can let the applicant talk to, uh, you know, what they’ve looked at as well. Any further questions for staff? Commissioner Pavic? Thanks. I just have a quick information. Timing. When the applicant comes in with the idea. Obviously, our rules are in place. When are they told this? Because they spent a great deal of time designing, bringing architects, doing all of that. So I’m kind of curious when they would be aware that they’re bumping up against this buffer and this wetland area in the process. If you can speak to that. Sure. Um, so they would have been aware rather early on. I’m sure they would have learned about it in the concept level as well. Um, so the wetland was delineated last fall, uh, later in the fall. Uh, did not allow staff and the state and the county really to go out and visit and verify the wetland delineation. Um, until later this spring. So that was kind of the the major delay in this project was waiting for growing season to, to verify the location of that wetland that has been done and verified. Um, however, yeah, they would have been they would have been informed of the, the buffer, uh, requirements early on. I appreciate that. Um, and I appreciate the added detail on having to do the delineation this spring. So that helps. Sure. Any further questions? Commissioner Klein? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to be clear. What is the standard we’re supposed to look at regarding the variance for that fire access road? Uh, my understanding is the fire access road should extend along one full length of the building. Um, so ideally, it would extend all the way to the building corner at the southwest corner here. Um, and Billy can sure jump in if I’m if I’m misinterpreting. Um. Good evening, Mr. Chair. And members of the commission. My name is Bill Aderholt, and I’m the deputy fire chief of prevention and fire marshal for the city of Maple Grove. Uh, just a little bit of background information about this requirement for a fire apparatus access road. Um, this requirement is not part of the adopted state fire code. This is a locally adopted ordinance. The city adopts, um, appendix D of the fire code. It makes it enforceable. Um, and then the ordinance specifically states that any building over 30ft in height needs a aerial apparatus access road within 30ft of that building, but no closer than 15ft. Um, so that aerial apparatus access road is essentially for us to be able to ladder the roof, get a roof report, and if necessary, do a trench cut to stop fire growth across that structure. Um, a fire incident, significant or comparable to this would be the Barclay’s Nursing home fire in Pennsylvania back in 2017. Um, so that would allow us to do this, um, that fire apparatus, access road encroachment to the wetland buffer only reduces that by about 25ft. So, um, the idea there is that we would have aerial apparatus availability to the entire side of that building. Um, so with that, I don’t think it’s a detriment. Um, for the variance process, to answer your question. Um, essentially, at the local level, there’s two ways a fire code variance can be granted. One is at a local level through a variance board. And since there we don’t have a variance board established in the city. The city council becomes that variance board. Um, if the city denies the variance, then the variance can therefore be moved on to the state Fire marshal division, which their Fire Marshal code Advisory panel can then rule on the variance. Make a recommendation of the State Fire Marshal to approve or deny. Um, and I sat on that board for about eight years as a supervisor of the State fire Marshal Division. And there’s three criteria that are weighed when the the panel makes their decision. Uh, the first one is, is there a financial hardship to the to the owner? In this case, I would say the financial hardship is achieved in that, um, the applicant has redesigned that fire apparatus access road, I believe, twice to try to get it as close to our needs as possible. Meeting our city ordinance. Um, and still meet the requirements of the wetland buffer. Um, so not only for the redesign. Again and the loss of the units, I think the financial hardship piece would be met. The second criteria is do they meet the spirit of the code? Um, in this case, I believe that their redesign and attempt to cover the entire side of the building, as determined by the fire code official, um, they’ve tried to meet that and had that wetland buffer not been there. I believe that that fire apparatus access road would extend the full length of the building as needed. Um, so they’ve I think they’ve tried and I so I believe that this does meet the spirit of the code. Finally, is there a detriment to life safety in the variance itself? Um, I do not believe there’s a detriment to life safety. That final 25 to 30ft of building that’s not accessible by the road is still accessible by an aerial apparatus. So if we went into a defensive fire operation where we don’t put anybody inside, we could still put an elevated master stream on the roof of that building and cover it with fire suppression if needed. We could also still put firefighters on the majority of that roof to effectively ventilate the roof or complete a trench cut to stop fire growth. Um, that final 25ft of um access would not prohibit us from doing that. Um, conversely, if we decided that the the north end of the building was the entire side, it’s too short. It doesn’t give us enough access of the building. So if we needed to complete that trench cut, we’d essentially have to send firefighters walking across an unstable roof to do so. Um, so it’s my opinion that those three criteria would be met. Um, in a, in a variance like this would would never go to the state fire marshal division. Those are typically only on fire code violations. Where they’re requesting variances for those. So, um, hopefully that answers your question. And it was a bit long, but. I think that’s super helpful. Thank you. And maybe this is just a question for the city attorney. But just to clarify. So we’re not supposed to be considering this under a standard variance analysis of like use, you know, are they using the property in a reasonable manner. Is it circumstances that they did not create and it won’t alter the essential character of the neighborhood? We’re not looking at that. We’re looking at the specific fire standards. Is that correct? Yeah. Mr. chair, members of the commission, um, the that standard that you’re talking about is for, uh, variances from zoning under under Minnesota statutes 462358 and city code chapter 36. This is fire code, which is a different section. It’s not zoning. And so it has its own standards. Thank you I appreciate it. And thank you again for the explanation. Any further questions for staff? Thank you, Deputy Chief. I appreciate the thorough explanation. All right. Now I’ll welcome up the applicant. Uh, feel free to come up and supplement staff’s presentation of your item. Feel free to share anything you think pertinent on your project. Thank you. Welcome. State your name and address for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Commission. My name is Eric Martin. I’m with an investment company. Our address is 400 Water Street, suite 200, Excelsior, Minnesota. Um, again, I really appreciate the opportunity to be with you this evening and share our project. Um, I’m here to answer any questions that, um, I can. And I also want you. I have members from our project team. Um, both our civil engineer and our architect for any additional technical questions as well. So appreciate the opportunity. Um, maybe start with Commissioner Lindsay’s question about, uh, the wetland. Yes. Um, so as, uh, Jesse outlined, we we completed our wetland delineation, um, late, late fall of 2025. Um, you know, and we received, uh, through, you know, several technical evaluation panels by, by the state, kind of the confirmed boundary. Um, I think, uh, early June, late, late, late May or early June of this year. Um, you know, the quality of this wetland, um, you know, is something that we’ve discussed at length with them. Um, you know, I think as it relates to how we design the building, um, combined with the wetland mitigation process, what my understanding was, you know, from that delineation. Um, you know, the, you know, the wetland quality was graded and, you know, and deemed what it is. And if we were to, you know, infringe or change or mitigate that wetland one, there’s, uh, you know, there’s a city process that we would need to go through that not, not not just involves the city, but the, you know, the the state organization. Um, as well. Um, and there is no guarantee, um, that, you know, that that path would be successful. Um, and so, you know, you know, we we believe that there’s a need for this type of product in the community. Um, and so, you know, we our team was tasked with us, was designing a building on the site. Um, that that that was feasible. Um, and that could be designed in a way that left that specific wetland in place. And, um, I don’t mean to put them on the spot, but I know Joseph Reiff from Civil Site Group, um, was was very involved in the wetland. Um identification process as well and can share more about, um, kind of the sequencing that would have needed to be involved if we were to look to mitigate that wetland. Commissioner, do you have any follow up? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that the. That the wetland goes through a significant, uh, delineation process. It, uh, there are stringent regulations. Quite frankly, I remember when those regulations first came out and we were going to save as little and as small an area as 100ft. I think over time that it was recognized that that was really too small of an area to try to preserve and to work around. But, you know, the rules are avoid, minimize, or then you can you can do something different, like purchase credits, but the first goal is to avoid and you’ve done that. I noticed that based on that delineation, there is no encroachment whatsoever. And we’re really talking about the buffer. But I didn’t hear that you explored any change that that, uh, those agencies might consider relative to modification of that wetland within the same area. And, and perhaps, perhaps with the modification that would, would permit some kind of a change in the area, because if we’re going to if we’re going to modify, remove or, or change the, the vegetation that’s in the wetland, then perhaps a location that would permit the extension of the fire access road could also be considered. So is there anything further that you can add that sure that you’ve talked about? I appreciate those those comments. And I think one thing that I would add is following our first technical evaluation panel, um, when we were walking the site with the state organization, um, there was another wetland area that, that that was identified. Um, that would have been kind of on the south leg of the, of the congregate, uh, community. Um, and you know, what was present during our site walk was signs of hydrate soils. Signs of wetland vegetation. Um, um, that would have significantly impacted this, this, this, this design. And that was not originally noted. Um, in our original wetland delineation that was completed in the fall of 2025. Um, and so we did walk down the process of, of, you know, you know, along with civil Site group and our and our wetland consultant, um, doing extensive research on historic aerials. Um, um, hydrology. Um, and things of that, that nature to, to in addition to analyzing the impact of development and other disturbances of the site. Um, and we were able to to, to argue that that was an incidental wetland. Um, and ultimately have it ruled as such in that annotation. Unfortunately, we, you know, the the path for the wetland to the west that’s still there. Um, you know, there, there there wasn’t a path to, um, um, to, to to assert, you know, through the through that same lens of analysis. Um, you know, there wasn’t a path, um, to claim that one as, as as incidental. Um, and so, I think, you know, effort was, was, was made to, to, you know, maximize to the extent that we can. Um, you know, the ability to add value to this parcel of, of land. Um, and that again, just the incidental ruling path was not one that was apparent for the what went to the West. So for you or the, uh, others as, as the applicant, if you could modify this wetland to improve its appearance and value not only to your development, but to the community. Is that something you would consider? I think we would. That’s a very, very fair question. And I think we would look at it holistically with our landscaping plan, with our green space plan, with how we’re programming, you know, other surface retention areas and trail connections. Um, and then balance that with feasibility relative to what’s the, uh, you know, the sequencing of that timeline. Um, and how it would relate to, you know, construction start and feasibility around those items. But they’ve done an exemplary job of pursuing this wetland. Could you state your name and address. Director Ken Streeter? 6900 Winnetka Circle. Uh, we’ve they they’ve really done a good job. But before we started marketing that land, I pursued with various agencies, including your city, as to what I could do. Because virtually that land like, that’s not saleable. So if there was any human way I could have monetized that by enhancing it, ingratiating it, make it better, I would have done it. But we pursued for I don’t want to exaggerate eight months, nine months. We pursued that. But, you know, you start out with everybody wants to save the wetland. And when, uh, old men with cigars in their mouth come up and say, hey, we’d like to do this and we’d like to do that. It’s not well received, but we had a long dialogue before this gentleman and I ever met each other. And then they’ve done nothing but try to accommodate it as best they could. So I think that’s the background you were looking for. Has everything been done? In my mind? It has been by us before we met and by that group after we met. So thank you. Any further follow up? All right. I’ll let you bring it back later if you want. Uh, any further questions for staff or the applicant? Actually, we’re on to the applicant now. Uh, Commissioner Klein. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the document that summarized the neighborhood meeting, it said that, um, an owner of the parcel to the west, um, had comments about adverse possession. I was just curious, um, what that was about. Yes. Um, and I can let Jessie comment on as well. We had one, one attendee of our neighborhood meeting. Um, uh, he was one of the owners of the parcel to the west, and, uh, you know, and and he had a question about parcel, parcel boundaries and, you know, historical utilization of land. And to be frank, that was out of my area of expertise. So I advised him to, um, talk to folks smarter than me. Um, Mike, Jessie and Peter. So. Yeah. Welcome. Come back up, Jesse. I think, I mean, this is a relatively new requirement, and I was going to ask the same question if Commissioner Klein didn’t, because, uh, your report on the neighborhood meeting and you had one attendee was pretty vanilla. And I know we didn’t give any guidance in the in our ordinance on what the requirements of such meeting summary is, but they’re intended to help inform this body to understand what came out of it. So not knowing what the question was or how it was resolved and how it may or may not need to be accounted for in our conversation tonight would be helpful. So anything you can share, uh, would be welcome. Uh, Mr. Carl? Sure. As the applicant mentioned, uh, the one attendee, uh, is the property owner to the west here. I’m kind of hovering over it with my cursor. Um, they had concerns about how they, uh, currently farm, uh, in within the right of way of Ranch View Road. And would that area be subject to adverse possession since they have maintained it over the course of many years? Um, we spoke to the city attorney about that and conveyed back to the the neighbor as well. Um, that adverse possession would not take place in a public right of way. Um, that being said, the city has no, no concern with them continuing to farm that area, you know, until they, uh, as long as they’d like, really, um, the, the aforementioned trail and emergency vehicle access is intended to be on the east side of this, uh, existing right of way. Um, so they should still maintain access to to that farm field if they’re unable to do it from there, from their property as well. Um, so really, nothing would change with the current farming practices on that property. Uh, this was conveyed back to the neighboring property owner. Thank you. Commissioner Pollock. Um. Thank you. I guess I keep coming back to if you know, we’re spending all of our time talking about something. If the design were slightly different, I think the questions have been answered about the access for the fire department and and all of that. Um, was it taken into consideration? Just that? And I know it’s a large project and I know the cost, but was any consideration just given to adjusting the design a little bit to eliminate the issue completely as far as the access and that. Thank you Commissioner. That’s a good question. Um, I would say yes. You know, this this project has gone through a handful of, um, design iterations. Um, and, and I think that this was a concept that after several of those, you know, we, we, we approached with the city to see, um, what the what the what the feasibility, um, would be and how we could design, um, you know, other, other characteristics of access to, to, to, to to make sure, you know, EMS would have appropriate access to the areas that they needed to, um, and, and, you know, to be frank, uh, even though it’s a ten acre site, which feels like a large site, the site is very tight, especially when you factor in, um, you know, the, you know, the, um, you know, the, the, the other circulation roads and the access points that, that are important to the functionality of the site. Um, and I think when you factor in, um, you know, the, the, the kind of the, the, the building fire suppression system, that’s, that’s, that’s designed as well. And again, in partnership with the city and, um, and, and the fire chief, um, we were given, you know, assurance, um, or I should say, guidance that, you know, we were meeting again the spirit of the code and, um, properly, um, designing a building that would be safe for residents. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Any further questions for the applicant? All right. Not seeing any. We’ll let you sit down. Um, this item is a public hearing, so I will move to open the public hearing. Uh, so anybody here tonight, uh, wishes to come forward and speak on this item? Uh, ask questions, give us your comments. Now is the time to come on up. Not seeing any movement from our audience this evening, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second? Second by Commissioner Tomlinson. All in favor of closing this public hearing, say a I. All opposed? Motion passes 7 to 0. Um, now, on to the items we have before us. So just a reminder for the body. We have three separate actions. We’ll take them each separately. Uh, this evening. The first one is for a development stage plan and final plat. Uh, then we have one for rezoning. And then lastly, we have one for the variance. We just spent a lot time talking about. Um, so I look to the body, uh, for action on the first item. Mister chair. Commissioner Lindsay. Uh, I would move to recommend that the city council direct the city attorney to draft a resolution and plan unit development agreement approving the Aberdeen Maple Grove Senior Living. Uh, DP, dsp planned unit development development stage plan and preliminary plat subject to the uh issues. Uh direct, directed by the applicable comments in the memorandum from the city. I have a motion by Commissioner Lengthy. Do I have a second? Second by Commissioner Marsh. Any further discussion on this item? By the body. Mr. chair. Commissioner Lindsay. Just a question. Uh, Mr.. Carl, I am presuming, relative to that wetland complex, that the issue of modifying the type of wetland was never one that was brought up or discussed. Is that correct? Modifying the the current impacted wetland? Yes. No, that. I mean, not necessarily the preference of staff would be to to maintain the existing wetland as is without any impacts. But if it could be improved, would you would you be opposed to that? Would the staff be opposed? I don’t want to speak for the Water resources department. Um, you know, or the panel as the applicant mentioned, um, who would have to approve the process as well, or the plan as well. Understood. But yeah. I, I understand where you’re coming from with, with why not improve the wetland? Um, there are a number of hoops through to jump through in order to do that. However. Uh, lastly, uh, what is the status of this application with the Elm Creek Watershed District? I mean, this this this proposal also has to be approved by the, uh, the watershed district because you’ve got stormwater and conditions associated with stormwater that are subject to their consideration and review and approval. Sure. Um, Joseph and the civil Engineer civil Site group, uh, it hasn’t been submitted yet to the watershed, but we have had preliminary meetings with them and we’ve gotten feedback from them on how how to do the design. So that’s that’s it. Process has not been submitted as yet, however. Correct. Yes. We need a yes. We need a approval from the city in order to submit to the watershed. All right. Thank you. Any further discussion on the item? I seconded. All right. Not seeing any um, I think, uh, the line of questioning and comment from Commissioner lengthy, as can be noted as part of the record. Um, both for the city council. Uh, if this item moves forward with the recommendation or actually either way. And then also for the watershed district. So, um, I think our at least Commissioner Lindsay’s positions on record. So I want to note that, uh, so I’ll call the caution. All in favor of the motion as second and say I, I opposed motion passes 7 to 0. Um, now, on to the second item before us, which is a rezoning. Do I have a motion from the body? Commissioner Bristol. I’d like to make a motion to recommend that the City Council direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance approving the rezoning. RA single family agriculture district to R-2. PUD single family residential planned unit development district. And a motion by Commissioner Bristol. Do I have a second? Second by Commissioner? Um, at the end. Uh, any further discussion on the motion? All right. I’ll call the question. All in favor of the motion? As seconded. Say aye. I opposed motion passes 7 to 0. Now, on to our last motion associated with this item. And that is for the fire code variance. Do I have a motion from the body? Commissioner Marsh. I’ll make a motion to recommend that the City Council direct the city attorney to draft. A resolution approving. The. Fire code variance request to reduce the required length of the fire apparatus access road. I’ve got a motion. Do I have a second? Second by Commissioner Bristol. Um, any further discussion? Commissioner Klein? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, we heard from the deputy fire chief and also the city attorney about the standards. And based on what was said here at today’s hearing, I do think that the standards for the variance, um, make sense and seem to have been met. Thank you. Mr.. Commissioner Klein, any further discussion? I think I’ll echo some of Commissioner Klein’s comments to one. I want to express my appreciation for the Deputy chief being here in your testimony. I think that was very helpful. I won’t say I’m pinching my nose on this, but, um, I think it was helpful to hear your testimony and that you don’t have any issues with it. It was great to see in the staff report that the applicant did make changes. Um, could changes have been made to comply with, with, with the code at the expense of the applicant? Probably. Um, would that have threatened the the financials of the project? Possibly. Um, so I, I’m willing to accept the variance. I’m not thrilled about it, but I’m comforted enough that the applicant has also done a really great job with the landscape plan. The architectural plan is impressive. I like the Norwegian design. Um, so overall I can take it as a whole, even if I’m not thrilled about supporting this variance. I will support it here tonight. Um, taking a bigger picture perspective beyond just the variance. Um, any further discussion? Not seeing any. I’ll call the question. All in favor of the motion and seconded. Say I, I. Opposed. Motion passes 7 to 0. Uh, so these are all recommendations on from this body. Uh, all positive, which is good. Um, good luck at the next stop. And the process at the city council meeting, uh, likely next week. Um, look forward to seeing this product come out of the ground. Like I said, overall, this is a very beautiful building and will be a nice addition to the city of Maple Grove. Um, with that, I’ll move on to our next item of business tonight. And that is a motion to adjourn to our next meeting, which appears to be at the end of July on the 27th. Do I have a motion, Commissioner Bristol, with a motion to adjourn. Do I have a second? Second by Commissioner Marsh. All in favor of adjourning, say, aye. Aye. Opposed? Planning Commission is adjourned for the evening.