MERClt·\NTS RETAIL I.~ ,,'I I-.! ( ~~ If! 17. :.;;

Restaurant Feasibility Study for 14500 Weaver lake Road

December 6, 2016

Following the Planning Commission meeting on November 14, it was indicated to us that analysis of restaurant options for the site at 14500 Weaver Lake Road would be helpful. For the purpose of this analysts, we analyzed a 2 mile driving distance radius from the proposed Spacebox Maple Grove site at 14500 Weaver Lake Road. In this area, most restaurant categories are represented by 2 - 3+ restaurants, which is an indicator of market saturation. The ability of this market to absorb another restaurant use in this location seems limited. The site's restaurant operating history, along with an abundance of competition from nearby fast food, casual, and higher end restaurants suggests a void in the market might exist in the sports bar category.

The current site is permitted for restaurant use, which could lower the barrier to entry for a restaurant operator. Alcohol is served at the adjacent Applebee's and there aren't zoning restrictions prohibiting a new operator from serving alcohol at the current site.

Given the failure of two national brand casual restaurants, Fuddruckers and IHOP in this location, it is unlikely another casual chain restaurant would find this site attractive. The site's PUD agreement also precludes a future restaurant operator from offering a menu highly similar to Applebee's.

The restaurants most proximate to the site are generally fast food or lower tier casual. As one progresses west from the site, the restaurant selection is almost entirely fast food, which is indicative of a restaurant category this site may support with sufficient market demand.

Generally, the higher tier restaurants such as Pittsburgh Blue, PF Changs, and Redstone American Grill are well represented in the market and concentrated in an area closer to the Shoppes at Arbor Lakes.

For the sports bar category, in addition to Wild Bill's Sports Saloon 1.3 miles away, there is a Duffy's Bar & Grill is located 3.2 miles away.

As a developer with a national presence in retail and restaurant markets, we see the most probable market void to fill with this site being a sports bar. Experience has indicated 14500 is a challenging site for a restaurant to thrive and be successful. As part of this study, we compiled a list of restaurants near 14500 Weaver Lake Road, which is attached below.

MERCHANTS RETAIL PARTNERS 1 PROTECTIVE liFE CENTER 12801 HIGHWAY 280 SOUTH, SUITE 345 1 BIRMINGHAM, AL 35223

~ 0 Iil Qj

,~ a:: s ~ ::J ,

0. I. OJ Qj , ii" ro ~ <:

c- g " -{"

"0 '" CO c: 15: ~ (3 ~ "'tone Blvd N

() 0)

~ "" ~ 0 ve N C1

~ r: I

iIi ::J j

'E z em _ll1 0. f Li / .s ,. ~ I

57thAve'll ;:f :::> w A' UJ

rob (/) t:: cr o: 0 c W ::J cO ~ ...c,

0 .- ::J @ ::> Z Z

14500 Weaver Lake Rd

z c -' c .8 _'<: o e <0 ~

3,

101S1 Ave N 101s1 PI N ~ 1015t Ave N -if

Bass lake Rei z ro ?: ~, ;~

z

Restaurant Market Analysis for Maple Grove - Proximity of 14500 Weaver Lake Road Driving Distance

Restaurant Address (mi) Description Category Applebee's 14400 Weaver Lake Rd 0.Q7 Casual American bar & grill chain Casual Taco Bell 13910 Grove Dr 0.4 Mexican-inspired fast-food chain Fast Food Burger King 13840 G rove Drive 0.4 Fast-food chain for grilled burgers Fast Food DQ Grill & Chill

13770 83rd Way N 0.4 Longtime ice cream & fast-food chain Fast Food Restaurant Frankie's Chicago

13724 83rd Way N 0.5 Counter-serve with pies, pasta Fast Food Style Pizza Chin Yung

13704 83rd Way N 0.5 Chinese Restaurant Hong Kong 13631 Grove Dr 0.5 Easygoing eatery serving Chinese fare Chinese Subway 13758 83rd Way N 0.5 Build-your-own sandwich chain Subs / Sandwich Wendy's 13645 83rd Way N 0.5 Fast-food burger chain known for shakes Fast Food Kyoto Sushi 13751 Grove Dr 0.5 Roomy Japanese restaurant with a buffet

Papa Murphy's Take 13541 Grove Drive 0.5 Chain for custom cook-at-home pizzas Fast Food

'N' Bake Pizza

Golden Corral 13603 Grove Dr, Maple

0.5 Casual Grove, MN 55369

EI Rodeo Mexican 13572 80th Cir N 0.6 No-frills spot for familiar preparations Mexican

Restaurant McDonald's 13595 83rd Way N 0.6 Iconic fast-food burger & fries chain Fast Food JC's Bar & Grill 13540 Grove Dr 0.6 Basic spot for happy hour & karaoke Bar & Grill Domino's Pizza 13590 G rove Dr 0.6 Longtime pizza chain known for delivery Fast Food Great Harvest Bread

13714 Grove Dr 0.6 Bakery chain serving whole-grain breads Casual Co. Angeno's Pizza &

13588 80th Cir N 0.6 Fast Food Pasta Taco John's 13320 Grove Dr 0.7 Fast Food Broadway Pizza 7951 Elm Creek Blvd N 0.7 Family-friendly spot for pies & subs Casual Jimmy John's 8099 Wedgwood Ln N 0.7 Subs / Sandwich Arby's 7885 Wedgewood Ln N 0.8 Fast Food Papa John's 7973 Wedgwood Ln N 0.8 Fast Food Famous Dave's Bar-

7825 Vinewood Ln 0.9 Bar & Grill B Que 3 Squares

12690 Arbor Lakes Pkwy N 1.2 Casual eats, drinks & dog-friendly patio Casual Restaurant Claddagh Irish Pub 7890 Main Street North 1.2 Celtic bar for pints & classic pub eats Bar & Grill Pieology Pizaria 7860 Main Street 1.2 Casual Sawatdee 7885 Main St 1.2 Casual 5 Guys Burgers &

7814 Main St N 1.2 Fast Food Fries Zushiya 7885 Main St 1.2 Casual The Lookout Bar &

8672 Pineview Ln N 1.3 American fare, a huge patio & live music Bar & Grill Grill

Malone's Bar & Grill 12635 Elm Creek Blvd N 1.3 Eatery with American fare & cocktails Bar & Grill

Nat Nat Gril 12725 Elm Creek Blvd N 1.3 Casual Wild Bills Sports

12730 Elm Creek Blvd 1.3 Bar & Grill Saloon Buca di Beppo Italian

12650 Elm Creek Blvd N 1.3 Casual Restaurant Jersey Mike's Subs 7744 Main St N 1.3 Subs / Sandwich Chipotle Mexican

7750 Main St. N 1.3 Fast Food Grill Panera Bread 7778 Main St. N 1.3 Fast Food Panda Express 12725 Elm Creek Blvd N 1.3 Chinese

Olive Garden 12520 Elm Creek Blvd N 1.4 Family-friendly Italian restaurant chain Casual Red Lobster 12515 Elm Creek Blvd N 1.4 Casual

Patrick's Restaurant 12489 Elm Creek Blvd 1.5 Casual and Bakery

Potbelly Sandwich 12409 Elm Creek Blvd 1.5 Chinese Shop

Rodizio Grill - Maple 12197 Elm Creek Blvd N 1.7 AII-you-can-eat Brazilian steakhouse Upscale Grove

Biaggi's Ristorante 12051 Elm Creek Blvd N 1.7 Classic Italian fare & a casual setting Casual Italiano

Redstone American 12109 S Main St 1.7 Upscale Grill

Punch Neapolitan 12107 Elm Creek Blvd N 1.7 PF Chang's 12071 Elm Creek Blvd N 1.7 Casual Jersey Mike's Subs 16375 County Road 30 1.7 Subs / Sandwich Granite City Food & The Shop pes at Arbor Lakes,

1.8 American fare plus an on-site brewery Bar & Grill Brewery 11909 Main St Pittsburgh Blue The Shoppes at Arbor Lakes,

1.8 Hand-cut steaks, seafood & happy hour Upscale Steakhouse 11900 Main St Benihana 11840 Fountains Way 1.8 Casual Chick Fil-A 11820 Fountains Way 1.8 Fast Food TGI Fridays 11830 Fountains Way 1.8 Casual Cafe Zupas 11669 Fountains Dr 1.9 Hearty soups, salads & sandwiches Subs / Sandwich Z's Smokin Bonez 16362 County Road 30 1.9 Fast Food Firehouse Subs 11649 Fountains Dr. 1.9 Fast Food Jet's Pizza 16338 County Rd 30 1.9 Fast Food Dave & Busters 11780 Fountains Way 1.9 Casual India House 11611 Fountains Drive 2 Upscale Freddy's Frozen Custard & 11600 Fountains Dr 2 Steakburgers Fast Food WichWich 9416 Dunkirk Ln N 2 Subs / Sandwich Dickey's Barbecue

11631 Fountains Drive 2 Casual Pit

Culver's Maple Grove 16380 96th Ave N 2.1 Casual

Chipotle Mexican 9881 Maple Grove Prkwy N 2.1 Grill Fast Food t: Original Pancake 63.22 Vinewood Ln N 2.5 Basic chain featuring breakfast all day Casual ouse

Olympia Cafe & 247 Central Ave 3.2 Gyros

Duffy's Bar & Grill 337 Central Ave 3.2 Bar & Grill Life Cafe 12525 Weaver Lake Rd

Total 69

Restaurant Market Summary 14500 Weaver Lake Road

Restaurant Category Total Fast Food 21 Casual 21 Bar & Grill 8 Subs / Sandwich 6 Upscale 4 Chinese 4 Mexican 1 Other 4 Total 69

Peter Vickerman

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Marilyn Arnlund Thursday, November 03, 2016 11:47 AM Peter Vickerman Scott Anderson; Eric Lind; Ted Massicotte; Bill Beumer The Lockup Self Storage

Hi Peter, I have reviewed the site plans for fire department review for The Lockup Self Storage and have the following comments:

1. The fire department connection shall be in an approved location. 2. The fire hydrant shall be within 150 feet of the fire department connection.

If there are any questions or concerns I can be contacted at 763.494.6091

Marilyn Arnlund, Deputy Fire Chief marnlund@maplegrovemn.gov

City of Maple Grove Fire-Rescue Department Shipping Address: 12800 Arbor Lakes Parkway, Maple Grove, MN 55369 Mail Address: P.O. Box 1180, Maple Grove, MN 55311-6180

763.494.6091 Office 763.494.6417 FAX 612.597.1141 Cell

~ - Cityof Ma leGrove MEMORANDUM

TO: W ALSS LLC, Bill Leitner

FROM: Peter Vickerman

DATE: November 8, 2016

SUBJECT: Storage Facility

Staff has reviewed the updated plans for the proposed self-storage facility and has the following comments.

1) Architecture: The proposed architecture looks very good and replicates the office-building image that staff has requested. If this moves to Development Stage, the north elevation should replicate the east elevation due to its high visibility on 1-94. The west elevation should also have a high level of architecture.

2) Storm water Management: a) Staff is conceptually ok with the idea of a pervious paver/pavement system but would

need further details at development stage including a deep level of aggregate to approximate a pervious surface and a detailed maintenance plan. In addition, they felt the location of proposed pervious system on the main drive aisle in and out should be eliminated and placed on the main N/S drive aisle on the east side of the proposed storage building. This will help with future maintenance by not blocking the egress from the site.

b) Any additional stormwater management that can be considered should be considered, including a larger area of a pervious pavement system (but outside of the main access aisle), green roof, infiltration benches on upgraded ponds, deep levels of aggregate under landscaping areas to provide greater water retention, etc.

3) Engineering and Fire Department staff will review the truck turning movements in detail as part of the Development Stage and the final site plan shall be subject to City approval of adequate truck movements through the site.

4) Adjoining property: The plans seemed to indicate rebuilding traffic islands that would be on the adjoining property, reducing their parking areas. If the proposal moves on to the Development Stage, approval from Applebee's for this work will be required.

• M~ple Grove

Trip Generation Comparison: IHOP Site - Restaurant versus Self-Storage Facility (1)

Average AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday

Land Use Total In Out Total In Out Total

Existing Land Use: Restaurant

Hit-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 632 30 24 54 29 20 49

Total 632 30 24 54 29 20 49

Proposed Land Use: Self-Storage Facility

Self-Storage Facility 224 7 6 13 12 11 23

Total 224 7 6 13 12 11 23

Difference between proposed -408 -23 -18 -41 -17 -9 -26 Self-Storage Facility and Existing (-64%) (-77%) (-75%) (-76%) (-59%) (-45%) (-53%)

Restaurant Land Use Notes:

(1) Trip generation estimates based on the 2012 ITE Trip Generatian Manual, 9th Edition.

G: \JohnH\Projects \Lock up Self Starage\ Trip Gen Estimate Development Scenario Comparison.docx

11/07/16

Jodi Iliff

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Jodi Iliff Monday, November 14, 2016 1:04 PM Dick Edwards Larry Colson; Chris Ayika; David Hutchins; Tony Marick; Craig Lamothe; Lorie Klein Fish Lake Seaplane Base Possible Obstruction?

FYI regarding EC North - storage facility (old Ihop Site)

JO(])II£IPP Administrative Secretary Community Development City of Maple Grove 12800 Arbor Lakes Parkway POBox 1180 Maple Grove MN 55311-6180 763-494-6042 763-494-6425-fax i.i.Uft@m?pl~grQY~ml},gQY www.maplegrovemn.gov

From: Braunig, Richard (DOT) [mailto:rick.braunig@state.mn.usj Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:03 AM To: John Bjornstad <johnbjornstad@gmail.com> Cc: Meyers, Judith (DOT) <judy.meyers@state.mn.us>; Akhund, Kelly (DOT) <Kelly.Akhund@state.mn.us>; Jodi Iliff <Jlliff@maplegrovemn.gov> Subject: RE: Fish Lake Seaplane Base Possible Obstruction?

Mr. Bjornstad,

I see in our records that this seaplane base is no longer licensed with our office. The data that both we and the FAA have says the sealane runs east-west though I can see from Google Earth that the proper orientation would be more north-south. The owner of the seaplane base is listed as David Malone. He has indicated this sealane is for his personal use.

If this were a public facility with public dollars invested in it, we would require zoning to protect the approaches. As a personal use facility, we would have no standing to argue that the sealane approaches should be protected. Further, a public sea lane would require that the flight path clear structures under the approach by 100 feet. Personal use seaplane bases have no similar restrictions.

While you may bring an objection, this office would not support putting restrictions on the development of the property of another to protect an unlicensed seaplane base.

'RWv13v~ Manager, Aviation Safety and Enforcement MnDOT Aeronautics 651-234-7230

1

From: John Bjornstad [mailto:johnbjornstad@gmail,com) Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 10:52 PM To: Braunig, Richard (DOT) <rick.braunig@state.mn.us> Subject: Fish Lake Seaplane Base Possible Obstruction?

Hi Rick,

I'm not sure who to contact regarding the seaplane base on Fish Lake in Maple Grove, MN. My question, if you can help me, is to see whether or not a building concept that is being proposed at the end of the lake will obstruct the seaplane approach/departure?

The building concept is for a 78,000 sq/ft storage facility at 14500 Weaver Lake rd., Maple Grove, MN 55311. The building height is approximately 50' high and would align with the glide path of the sea lane.

There is a public hearing tomorrow Monday, November 14,2016 to review the proposal. I plan to attend and I would like to find out if I should be fighting to block this concept. I am a pilot living on the lake and I would like to see that the seaplane base continues to be operational.

If I need to bring this to another departments attention could you please direct me to the right place?

Thank you,

John Bjornstad 763-370-5429 johnbjornstad@gmail.com

The Minnesota Department of Transportation invites you to take our two-minute survey to help us improve our services. MnDOT External Customer Survey Thank you for telling us about your experience

2

Jodi Iliff

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Joseph F. Keller <jkeller@motivaction.com> Wednesday, November 16, 2016 3:08 AM Larry Colson IHOP lot proposal

Dear Larry,

It was just brought to my attention that you are considering rezoning the old IHOP lot to allow an 89,000 square foot, 4 story building towering over 45 feet high. As I understand it, the property is currently zoned for restaurant use only. In addition, I believe it falls within the Shoreland Overlay District which restricts over construction of lake area properties. I'm told the plan currently overreaches these restrictions.

If the aforementioned is accurate, I strongly encourage you to not allow this to go forward for two reasons. This building will change the entire character of the area and be an eye sore for everyone who lives in the nearby neighborhoods, as I do. More importantly, I'm very concerned that this will be detrimental to everyone's tireless efforts (including the City's) to improve the water quality of Fish Lake -- a federal requirement to get the lake off of the impaired lake list.

Please do not let this happen. Thank you for your consideration.

1

Joe Keller Fish Lake Area Residents Association member and neighbor

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is confidential, is intended only for the named recipient(s) above, and may contain trade-secret information or other proprietary information, and/or information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.

2

Jodi Iliff

From: Sent: Cc: Subject:

Cici, Michele <MicheleCici@edinarealty.com> Wednesday, November 16, 2016 1:11 PM Larry Colson; Craig Lamothe; Chris Ayika; Tony Marick; David Hutchins; Lorie Klein Proposal for Self-Storage Facility at 14500 Weaver Lake Road N.

Dear Sir,

I am a Maple Grove resident and reside on the east side of Fish Lake. I just learned about this proposal & vehemently oppose building such a large facility in this spot. The property is currently zoned for restaurant use only. It falls within the Shore land Overlay District which restricts over construction of lake area properties. The plan currently overreaches these restrictions. Furthermore, the proposed structure is 16 times larger than the current limit. It would be an eyesore to the residents of the area & views of Fish Lake.

I suggest that other type of businesses such a hair salon, dentistry/medical care, coffee shop, small retail, fitness center would be more appropriate to service the residents of the area as well as complement the lot that is available, since it has proven not to be a viable site for restaurants.

Best Regards,

Michele Cici, CPA I Chief Financial Officer Edina Realty Home Services I 6800 France Ave. So, Suite 600, Edina, MN 55435 I Phone: 952-928-5048 Find Edina Realty on Facebook, Twitter, the Web or from your Phone

This communication, along with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the individual or entity to which this communication is addressed, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by return email and delete this message, along with any attachments, from your computer. Thank you.

Edina Realty will never request that you send funds or nonpublic personal information, such as credit card or debit card numbers or bank account and/or routing numbers, by email. If you receive an email like this concerning any transaction involving Edina Realty, do not respond to the email and immediately contact your agent.

1

Jodi Iliff

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Linda Howington < lindasuehowington@yahoo.com> Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:04 AM Larry Colson Rezoning of Old IHOP Property

Larry Colson,

I am writing to express my strong objections of the proposed rezoning of the old IHOP property. It is unthinkable that you would consider approving a 89,000 square foot, 4 story building that towers over 45 feet. This property falls within the Shoreland Overlay District which restricts over construction of lake area properties. The plan currently overreaches these restrictions with a proposed building structure that is 16 times larger than the current limit.

I also question how you would even consider a building project that overreaches current restrictions to satisfy a company from Alabama rather than protect the Maple Grove homeowners.

Please protect Maple Grove homeowners property values and do not approve the rezoning of this property. I would like to thank you in advance for doing what is in the best interest of Maple Grove homeowners.

Linda Howington 7427 Fernbrook Ln N Maple Grove, MN 55311

1

Jodi Iliff

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Robert Howington < bob.howington@yahoo.com> Friday, November 18, 2016 3:31 PM Chris Ayika Mark Steffenson; Karen Jaeger; Phil Leith; Erik Johnson; Judy Hanson IHOP Property/Weaver Lake Road

Dear Sir,

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed rezoning of the IHOP property located on the 14000 block of Weaver Lake Road in Maple Grove.

With the thousands of acres of inexpensive undeveloped land nearby, I find it unconscionable that the City/Planning Commission, are considering rezoning this property to allow an out-of-state company to build an 89,000 square foot, 45 foot high, 4-story storage building adjacent to Fish Lake. Is this really what Maple Grove needs - more high rise building around its lakes?

Also, being that the property in question falls within the Shoreland Overlay District, whose responsibility is to prevent over construction of lake area properties, the current building plan exceeds current building restrictions - not by a little - but would exceed the allowable building size by 16 times! I find it difficult to understand why/how such a plan is even being considered as it clearly does not meet the size limitations put in place by the city planners for this exact reason.

This project has huge potential downside for all parties concerned and ask that the city stop the entire process until greater transparency/clarity is provided by the city/Planning Commission and more input is received from the community. In the meantime, I urge you to reject the proposed rezoning of this property.

Thank you.

Bob Howington 7427 Fernbrook Ln N

. Maple Grove, MN 55311 651-470-9533

1

Jodi Iliff

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Joe Yard < mnjoe@comcast.net> Friday, November 18, 2016 11:10 AM Chris Ayika; Larry Colson; Craig Lamothe; Tony Marick; David Hutchins; Lorie Klein I Hop project

Dear Commissioners:

I want to let you know I very much oppose the proposed project of the old I Hop. I believe it will be an eyesore for any property that is close to it. I own property at 8181 East Fish Lake Road and 8171 Maple Lane. I also question if this will be hazardous to Fish Lake. If this makes it past the planning stage I will lobby the mayor and city council to defeat this.

Sincerely,

Joe & Cyndy Yard

1

Jodi Iliff

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Barbara Kolb <bjkolb@gmail.com> Sunday, November 20, 20164:14 PM Chris Ayika; Larry Colson; Craig Lamothe; Tony Marick; David Hutchins; Lorie Klein Dave Kolb Concern over proposal for self-storage facility on old IHOP site off Weaver Lake Road--22NOV16

Hello Maple Grove Commissioners -

We recently learned a company out of Alabama is proposing to rezone the old IHOP plot to allow for a 89K square foot, 4-story building with a height of over 45 feet. This compares to the current building with a footprint of under 5K square feet so obviously a much larger and more massive building. In addition, though the site is currently zoned for restaurant use, this company is proposing to build a storage facility on the site which curiously enough resembles an office building.

We-as residents on Fish Lake and of Maple Grove-do not support this proposal for many reasons and encourage you to NOT approve it as well. Though not an all inclusive list, some reasons we oppose this structure are:

• There is already a large self-storage facility located in Maple Grove in the old Target location off of Dunkirk. It is our understanding this facility is not at capacity and has room for many more seeking self­ storage. Given it is not full, it appears there is not a significant urgent need for self-storage facilities in Maple Grove at this time.

• The sheer size of the proposed building is way too large for that site, given its proposed size is approximately 16x larger than the structure currently on the plot of land. It is not relevant to us the building is drawn to have 'appealing' architecture, mirroring that of the Boston Scientific building next to it. It would be a massive building on a small plot of land.

• A concern of ours and a general concern we have heard from residents in the surrounding area is the building is really being built for eventual office space. We cannot fathom how that would even be conceivable in that area, given the traffic patterns and levels that already exist there.

• This traffic area of Maple Grove (e.g., Weaver Lake Road by 194) has 4 stoplights in about a mile length of road, 2 of which get extremely backed up in rush hour times, given the short distance between the stoplight at the old IHOP site and the next one (if you are heading E on Weaver Lake Road) right before E Fish Lake Road. As noted in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated 14NOV16, the author, Peter Vickerman, notes "The site currently has one egress point onto Weaver Lake Road that is controlled by a traffic signal. This portion of Weaver Lake Road is the busiest non-freeway road in the city (emphasis added) and has significant traffic challenges with this light being so close (~400') from the 1-94 interchange/Fish Lake Road light on Weaver Lake Road." Given this, it is inconceivable the Commissioners would approve such a large new structure and business on this plot of land.

• Lastly, there is currently a large office building for sale off of Wedgwood Road North which is empty, has ample parking / a large parking lot that looks like it could easily accommodate trucks and/or trailers, and has easy access to 1-494. Why not put this storage facility-if another one is indeed needed in Maple Grove-in this location instead? Have they considered buying / renovating the 101K square foot Hartford Building at 6820 Wedgwood Road? Or as another option, there is a plot ofland for sale just E of 494 and N of Bass Lake Road that could be built upon. It is located at 13000 63rd Avenue North and per the listing "This property is zoned Business District which includes Retail Sales, Office, Medical, Personal Services Business, Essential Services, etc. The property is currently vacant and totals

1

approximately 1.5 acres .. This offering represent the opportunity to acquire land or a build to suit vacant lot with 1-494 visibility with great demographics." Seems like a more logical location to build a new large self-storage facility 1 business.

In the end, we as residents on Fish Lake and of Maple Grove oppose building a new self-storage facility on the old IHOP site for many reasons.' Please do NOT approve this proposal for aesthetic, traffic, and environmental reasons.

Sincerely -

Barb and Dave Kolb 952/240-4400 and 952/240-3331

2

Jodi Iliff

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Lori Fjelstad < Lorif@goldencareusa.onmicrosoft.com> Monday, November 28, 20164:30 PM Chris Ayika; Larry Colson; Craig Lamothe; Tony Marick; David Hutchins; Lorie Klein Space Box Proposal

Greetings!

I just found out from my neighbor that there is a proposal to re-zone the currently vacant IHOP space to allow for a 89,000 foot, 4 story, self-storage facility called Space Box. This facility is beyond huge compared to the current structure and I oppose the use of lake view land in this manner. Certainly there are better land options for a building of this size.

I also believe, if built, Space Box will have a negative effect on surrounding property values. Please keep the current zoning requirements for a restaurant, or at least for a place for community enjoyment.

Thank you,

Jody & Lori Fjelstad 7421 Fernbrook Lane North Maple Grove, MN 55311

1

MALI(ERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP

1900 U.S. BANK PLAZA SOUTH TOWER 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612-344-1111 FACSIMILE 612-344-1414

MEMORANDUM

To: From: Dated: RE:

City of Maple Grove Planning Commission Stuart T. Alger, Esq. December 12,2016 Spacebox Maple Grove - PUD Concept Stage Plan

We represent SS Maple Grove, LLC, the owner of the real property located at 14500 Weaver Lake Road, Maple Grove, Minnesota (the "Property"), which is the subject of the Space box Maple Grove concept plan application before the Planning Commission. We write on behalf of the owner and the applicant, which is W ALSS, LLC.

This memorandum is limited to addressing the potential legal issue raised in the November 14, 2016, Staff Report relating to allowable floor area ratio ("FAR"). Specifically, the Staff' Report suggests that the Property is subject to a maximum FAR or "building mass" standard established by the City's zoning ordinance. The limitation provision identified in the Staff Report, however, does not apply to the Property,

1. THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO PUDS DO NOT ESTABLISH MAXIMUM FAR OR BUILDING MASS STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTY.

The Property is zoned as Planned Unit Development ("PUD"). The City's zoning ordinance relating to Planned Unit Developments does not establish any performance standard for building mass or maximum FAR. City Code, §§ 36-61, et seq. Likewise, the City's zoning ordinance relating to Planned Unit Development Districts does not establish any performance standard relating to building mass or maximum FAR. City Code, § § 36-611, et seq. Instead, the PlIO provisions allow the City to relax application of performance standards established elsewhere in the ordinance, in relevant PUtt as follows:

A planned unit development ("PUD") is intended to allow variation from the strict literal provisions of this chapter, including, but not limited to, requirements relating to setbacks, height, floor area, floor area ratio, lot area, width, depth, and yards. If a proposed development is approved by the City as a PlID as provided in this section, then the dimensions of the PUD as approved shall be deemed in compliance

218842,DOC){; 12/7/2016

with all of the dimensional requirements of this chapter, including setbacks, height, floor area, floor area ratio, lot area, lot width, lot depth, and yards.

City Code, § 36-61(a). In other words, land like that Property located within a PUD or a PUD zoning district is not subject to any performance standard relating to building mass or maximum FAR established in the City's zoning ordinance. For the same reason, it is not necessary for owners of land like that Property located within a PUD or a PUD zoning district to apply for a variance from any performance standard relating to building mass or FAR established in the City's zoning ordinance. City Code, § 36-62(b).

II. THE MAXIMUM FAR PROVISION OF THE SHORELAND PROVISIONS OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE DO NOT APPLY HERE.

In addition to being in a Planned Unit Development District, the Property is also located in a Shoreland overlay district. . The Shoreland District zoning ordinance states that the chapter is "adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained" in "Minn. Regs. Parts 6120.2500- 6120.3900," which are model local government shoreland management regulations developed and promulgated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. City Code, § 36-691(a). Note, however, that the Property is not subject to direct regulation by the DNR under these regulations. The Property is subject to shoreland regulation only by the City through its zoning ordinance and other ordinances. The City's zoning ordinance appears to be modeled in part on the DNR shoreland management regulations.

The Staff Report concerning this application states that the site is subject to a maximum FAR of 7.5% for a commercial building. (Staff Report, p. 2). The City planning staff advises us that the source of this standard is City Code, § 36-698(e)(2)(b). A copy of this provision is attached to this memorandum. This provision establishes minimum FARs for certain "commercial" PUDs. (ld.) To apply this standard, however, one must first determine the "average inside living area size of dwelling units or sites" within the PUD. City Code, § 36-698(e)(2)(a). The standard cannot be applied to a commercial site like the subject property because it does not include any "dwelling unit" or dwelling site." Accordingly, the "7.5%" FAR standard identified in the Staff Report cloes not apply to the Property. I

The Staff Report notes that the DNR acknowledged that the FAR limitations in its regulations were written with commercial resorts on a lake in mind, not the type of use considered here. As used by the DNR, the term "PUD" refers only to residential uses or commercial lodging facilities. It does not refer to traditional commercial uses of the type proposed here.'

The DNR regulations define "planned unit development" as a "development characterized by a unified site design for a number of dwelling units or dwelling sites on a parcel." Minn. R. 6120.2500, subp, 12 (2016). The DNR regulations define "dwelling sites" and "dwelling units"

I We note that it would be highly impractical, perhaps impossible, to make a commercial site in a developed area like Maple Grove subject to a 7.5% maximum FAR. 2 The DNR regulations contain a separate definition of "commercial use" that includes developments of the type proposed here. Minn. R. 6] 20.2500, subp. 3b (2016) (defining "commercial use" as ""principal usc of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental, or trade of products, goods, and services").

2 I 8842.DOCX- 121712016

as residential or living quarters. MilU1. R. 6120.2500, subp. 6c and 6d (2016). The DNR regulations define "commercial planned unit developments" as "uses that provide transient, short term lodging spaces, rooms, or parcels.... For example, hotel/motel accommodations, resorts, recreational vehicle and camping parties, and other primarily service-oriented activities ... " Minn. R. 6120.2500, subp. 3a (2016). Accordingly, the term "Commercial PUD" as used in the DNR regulations refers to lodging units or sites that are leased or sold for commercial purposes (e.g., a resort or campground). The reference to "Commercial PUD" in the Shore land chapter of the City's zoning ordinance is likewise limited to such dwelling units or sites. City Code, § 36-698( e )(2)( a).

In summary, the maximum FAR requirement identified in the Staff Report applies only to residential uses or commercial lodging faci lities. It has no application to a traditional commercial use of the type at issue here. The City's zoning ordinance docs not contain any restrictions or standards relating to maximum FAR or building mass that apply to the Property. Contrary to the Staff Report's conclusion, the applicant is not proposing an FAR that exceeds the standard limit

III. GENERALIZED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION IS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A PERMIT OR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

We understand that, at the public hearing before the Planning Commission concerning this application, members of the public appeared and expressed generalized concerns relating to the the proposed development. The law in Minnesota is that community opposition to a landowner's desire to use its land for a particular purpose is not a legally sufficient reason for denying a permit or development application. Scott County Lumber Co. Inc. v. City 0/ Shakopee, 417 N. W.2d 721 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) and Amoco Oil Co. v. City 0/ Minneapolis, 395 N.W.2d 115 (MilU1. Ct. App. 1986). Indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court bas held that a local government entity must base the denial of a permit or development application on "something more concrete than neighborhood opposition and expression of concern for public safety and welfare." Chanhassen Estates Residence Assoc. v. City 0/ Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 (1984); see also Scott County Lumber Co. Inc. v. City a/Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) and Amoco Oil Co. v. City a/Minneapolis, 395 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. Ct. App, 1986).

Accordingly, we respectfully ask that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the applicant's concept plan.

218842,DOCX- 12171201(;

Maple Grove, MN Code of Ordinances Page 10f7

Sec. 36-698. - Planned unit developments.

(a) Allowed developments. Planned unit developments are allowed in the S district for new projects on undeveloped

land, redevelopment of previously built sites, or conversions of existing buildings and land.

(b) Review and approval. Planned unit developments must be processed pursuant to divisions 2 and 4 of article II of

this chapter.

(c) Required information. The applicant for a PUD must submit the following documents prior to final action being

taken on the application request:

(1) A site plan and/or plat for the project showing locations of property boundaries, surface water features,

existing and proposed structures and other facilities, land alterations, sewage treatment and water supply

systems (where public systems are not available), and topographic contours at two-foot intervals or less. When

a PUD is a combined commercial and residential development, the site plan and/or plat must indicate and

distinguish which buildings and portions of the project are residential, commercial, or a combination of the two.

(2) A property owners' association agreement (for residential PUDs) with mandatory membership, all in

accordance with the requirements of subsection (f) of this section.

(3) Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or otherinstruments that:

a. Properly address future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional buildings,

beaching of watercraft, and construction of commercial buildings in residential PUDs; and

b. Ensure the longterm preservation and maintenance of open space in accordance with the criteria and

analysis specified in subsection (f) of this section.

(4) When necessary, a master plan/drawing describing the project and the floor plan for all commercial structures

to be occupied.

(5) Those additional documents as requested by the city that are necessary to explain how the PUD will be

designed and will function.

(d) Determination of suitable area. Proposed new planned unit developments or expansions to exlsting planned unit

developments must be evaluated using the following procedures and standards to determine the suitable area for

the dwelling unit/dwelling site density evaluation under subsection (e) of this section:

(1) The project parcel must be divided into tiers by locating one or more lines approximately parallel to a line that

identifies the ordinary high-water level at the following intervals, proceeding landward:

SHORELAND TIER DIMENSIONS

General development lakes-first tier

Sewered Unsewered

(feet) (feet)

200 200

General development lakes-second and

additional tiers

267 200

Recreational development lakes 267 267

about.blank 12/8/2016

Maple Grove, MN Code of Ordinances Page 2 of7

l . .-N_at_u_r_al_e_n_v_ir_o_n_m_e_n_t_la_k_e_s ..... 1_4_0_0 ~ _ __,L1_3_2_0 ." _j

(2) The suitable area within each tier is calculated by excluding from the tier area all wetlands, bluffs, or land below

the ordinary high-water level of public waters. This suitable area and the proposed project are then subjected

to either the residential or commercial planned unit development density evaluation steps to arrive at an

allowable number of dwelling units or sites.

(e) Dwelling unit/dwelling site density evaluation. The procedures for determining the "base" density of a PUD and

density increase multipliers are as follows. Allowable densities may be transferred from any tier to any other tier

further from the water body, but must not be transferred to any other tier closer to the water body.

(/1) Residential PUD "base" density evaluation. The suitable area within each tier is divided by the single residential

lot size standard for lakes. Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the residential

planned unit developments are then compared with the tier, density, and suitability analyses in this section and

the design criteria in subsection (f) of this section.

(2) Commercial PUD "base" density evaluation.

a. Determine the average inside living area size of dwelling units or sites within each tier, including both

existing and proposed units and sites. Computation of inside living area sizes need not include decks,

patios, stoops, steps, garages, or porches and basements, unless they are habitable space.

b. Select the appropriate floor area ratio from the following table:

COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FLOOR AREA RATIOS*

Unit floor area

(sq. ft.)

200

about blank

Public Waters Classes

Second and

additional

tiers on unsewered

general

development

lakes; recreational

development lakes

Sewered general

development lakes;

first tier on unsewered

general

development lakes

0.040 0.020

Natural

environment

lakes

I 0.010

12/8/2016

Maple Grove, MN Code of Ordinances Page 3 of7

300 0.048 0.024 0.012 I'

400 0.056 0.028 0.014

500 0.065 0.032 0.016

600 0.072 0.038 0.019

700 0.082 0,042 0.021

800 0.091 0.046 0.023

•

900 0.099 0.050 0.025 ,

1,000 0.108 0,054 0,027

1,100 0.116 0.058 0.029

1,200 0.125 1.0.064 0.032

1,300 0,133 0.068 0.034

. 1,400 0.142

• 0.072 0.036

1,500 0.150 0.075 0.038 • __ ·_W'··_·Nh=~~¥N~" .... "',="'h~' m

*For average unit floor areas less than shown, use the floor area ratios listed for 200 square feet. For areas greater

than shown, use the ratios listed for 1,500 square feet. For recreational camping areas, use the ratios listed at 400 square feet. Manufactured home sites in recreational camping areas shall use a ratio equal to the size of the

manufactured home or, if unknown, the ratio listed for 1,000 square feet.

c. Multiply the suitable area within each tier by the floor area ratio to yield total floor area for each tier

allowed to be used for dwelling units or sites.

d. Divide the total floor area by tier computed in under subsection (e)(2)c of this section by the average inside

living area size determined under subsection a of this subsection •. This yields a base number of dwelling units and sites for each tier.

e. Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the commercial planned unit development are then compared with the tier, density and suitability analyses in this section and the design criteria in subsection (f) of this section.

(3) Density increase multlpllers.

about blank 12/8/2016

a.

Maple Grove, MN Code of Ordinances Page 40f7

Increases to the dwelling unit or dwelling site base densities determined under subsection (e)(1) or (2) of

this section are allowable if the dimensional standards in section 36-695 are met or exceeded and the design criteria in subsection (f) of this section are satisfied. The allowable density increases under

subsection (e)(3)b of this section will only be allowed if structure setbacks from the ordinary high-water

level are increased to at least 50 percent greater than the minimum setback, or the impact onthe water

body is reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management, topography, or additional means

acceptable to the city and the setback is at least 2S percent greater than the minimum setback.

b. Allowable dwelling unit or dwelling site density increases for residential or commercial planned unit

developments are as follows:

Maximum Density Increase Within Each Tier

(percent)

Density Evaluation Tiers

First 50

Second 100

Third 200

Fourth 200

Fifth 200

(f) Maintenance and design criteria.

(1) Maintenance and administration requirements.

a. Before final approval of a planned unit development, adequate pr~visions must be developed for preservation and maintenance in perpetuity of open spaces and for the continued existence and

functioning of the development.

b. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication. and acceptance, or other equally

effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long-term preservation and maintenance of

open space. The instruments must include all of the following protections:

1. Commercial uses prohibited (for residential PUDs);

2. Vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance prohibited;

3. Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials prohibited; and

4. Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft prohibited.

c. Unless an equally effective alternative community framework is established, when applicable, all residential planned unit developments must use an owners' association with the following features:

1. Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit or site purchaser and any successive purchasers;

2. Each member must pay a pro rata share ofthe association's expenses, and unpaid assessments can

about.blank 12/8/2016