HomeMy Public PortalAboutPC Minutes 10-08-2019 1
CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday October 8, 2019
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Aaron Amic, Peter Galzki, Beth Nielsen, Kerby Nester,
Cindy Piper, and Robin Reid.
Absent: Planning Commissioner Rashmi Williams
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke and Planning Intern Ben Schneider.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
No comments made.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings
Albers provided an update on recent activities of the City Council including approvals
granted through the Consent Agenda that had previously been considered by the Planning
Commission. He stated that the Council also approved a lot combination at 4072 Hamel
Road.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update.
5. Public Hearing – Mark Smith – Weston Woods – Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Planned Unit Development Concept Plan – East of
Mohawk Drive and North of Highway 55
Finke presented a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Planned Unit
Development Concept Plan for property east of Mohawk Drive and north of Highway 55. He
explained that the request would be to change the land use of the southern property from a
business designation to a residential designation, noting that two different residential products
would be proposed ranging from low to medium density. He advised that five acres of
property would be proposed to be deeded to the City for conservation/park/open space. He
stated that the second half of the request would be to amend the staging of the northern
property, which is designated for development after 2025, to 2019/2020. He stated that the
PUD Concept Plan would include 76 twinhomes on the northern property, and 41 single-
family and 33 townhomes on the southern property. He stated that the northern parcel is
approximately 80 acres, but only 20 acres would be developable after exclusion of wetland
and buffer. He stated that the southern parcel is 55 acres in size with 28 acres buildable. He
reviewed the surrounding land uses, noting business to the west and southeast, low density
residential to the east, and land identified as future development to the north. He displayed
the Concept Plan, identifying the different residential products proposed throughout the sites.
He noted that the applicant would propose to extend Chippewa Road from Mohawk to
Arrowhead Drive as part of this development, noting that the applicant would propose to pay
2
for that extension. He noted that the park/open space would be proposed for the southeast
portion of the southern site. He stated that the City’s natural resource specialist visited the
site a few years ago and identified that area to be a higher quality wooded area. He reviewed
the existing land uses for the northern and southern portions of the site, comparing that to the
proposed land uses through this request. He also reviewed the current staging of the
properties, comparing that to the proposed staging. He noted that the City reviewed a similar
Concept Plan a few years ago from the same applicant, while still in the Comprehensive Plan
process, and noted that minutes from previous discussions were provided in the Commission
packet for review. He suggested that the Commission focus on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, as that decision would drive the request. He suggested that the Commission also
provide input on the PUD but concentrate on the question of use. He provided additional
details on how the staging plan of the City was developed, noting that it focused on the
supported infrastructure, not only of the City but also regionally. He explained that the
staging in this area focused on the ability to extend Chippewa Road, which the applicant is
proposing with the request. He stated that a second watermain would also be needed in this
area, noting that the applicant is also proposing to construct that improvement at their cost.
He stated that staging is also intended to reduce concentration of development in different
areas and timeframes and to control growth. He stated that this property is included in the
MUSA but the change in land use would remove 23 to 28 acres of land guided for business
development and instead changing that to residential and adding additional homes to this
area. He noted that three public comments were included in the packet and three additional
written comments were received after the report but before the hearing and all will be
included in the record for tonight’s meeting.
Amic asked for details on the comment “going west to go east”.
Finke explained that Mohawk Drive access would be restricted as right-in/right-out and
therefore explained how vehicles would travel west in order to move east. He confirmed that
there would not be another way to go east to Highway 55 from these properties.
Bill Griffith, representing the applicant, explained that this is a concept that was brought
forward to the City two years ago when it was close to the end of the discussion related to the
Comprehensive Plan and therefore it was difficult to consider making changes. He noted that
the developer decided to wait and give the City time to complete that process. He explained
that they believe that this is a good plan that also provides public benefits and that is why
they are bringing it back at this time. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan amendment
would consider the overall goals for the community and how that can be addressed. He noted
that this would provide a mix of housing and provides for the preservation of open space. He
asked if the City wants to provide for the joint development of those parcels or would rather
rely on a market driven response to the staging and use. He stated that they have combined
the request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment with the PUD Concept Plan, noting that
the PUD over both the north and south parcels allows the developer to balance the density
between the parcels while providing buffering and preservation of open space. He
commented that the development is focused on the westerly portion of both the north and
south parcels, to create a 1,300-foot open space buffer to the nearest neighboring parcels. He
stated that 60 percent of the site would be preserved with the inclusion of wetlands and
wetland buffers. He noted that Mark Smith has purchased both the northern and southern
parcels and is now a landowner in the community. He reviewed the single-family homes and
townhomes proposed for the southern parcel and the twinhomes on the northern parcel,
noting that this would provide a range of housing types for residents and potential residents.
He stated that the southerly wooded area would create a nice buffer to the highway, but they
will need to review that to ensure that the trees are healthy. He stated that the park area
would have 20 parking stalls for visitors. He stated that they understand that this
3
development could not move forward without providing public benefit. He noted that they
attempted to keep the density low, while still meeting the requirements for being within the
MUSA. He again summarized the public benefits that would be provided through the
development. He noted that the sites will ultimately develop but noted that the joint
development of the parcels would provide public benefit in return.
Reid stated that during the last review of this concept there was discussion on why the
southern parcel was not appropriate for business development and asked the developer to
provide a brief statement for the Commissioners that were not a part of the Commission at
that time.
Griffiths explained that the main reason this parcel would not be appropriate for business
development would be the topography of the site and the natural features that should be
preserved. He noted that a small portion of the property close to the highway could develop
as business but much of the site is covered in wetlands and therefore would not be suitable for
a campus development. He noted that Mr. Smith has owned the properties for two years and
has had very little interest in business development. He noted that residential development
provides additional flexibility to work within the topography and wetland locations.
Reid stated that she would like assurance that there would be a variety of styles and colors in
the material and architectural design and as she would not want to see copycat homes
throughout the development. She asked how the staging of the development would be
completed.
Mark Smith, applicant, replied that he would mass grade the site and noted that the single-
family and townhome market have strong demand right now. He stated that the twinhome
development may be staged for a later time.
Amic asked the cost benefit of the infrastructure improvements.
Griffiths stated that he does not have that exact information.
Finke stated that the City is completing a corridor study to provide updated costs. He noted
that the costs two years ago estimated about $800,000 to $1,000,000 for street construction
with significant wetland mitigation that would have an additional cost. He noted that the
developer would not propose to fund the mitigation costs, that would be a City responsibility.
He noted that the corridor study will continue irrespective of this request. He stated that the
watermain has been identified in the City’s CIP with a cost of $300,000. He noted that if the
properties do not develop, the City would ultimately move forward on that infrastructure
improvement.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m.
Chris Hillberg, 4459 Trillium Drive, stated that he is passionate about preserving the rural
character of Medina and finds this request in opposition of the work the City put into the
Comprehensive Plan. He stated that throughout that process there were many opportunities
for different uses and staging for the properties. He urged the Commission not to go against
the wishes of the people that put so much time and effort into developing the Comprehensive
Plan. He stated that although the applicant is proposing to build the road, he believes that
would be more expensive than expected. He questioned why the City would be responsible
for permitting and wetland mitigation as that would be very expensive. He stated that the
applicant has stated that the increase in density would allow the applicant to provide a higher
4
investment in infrastructure. He stated that he interprets that as the developer will build the
road if they are allowed to build more homes.
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Nester stated that R-1 is typically used for low density residential and therefore the density of
the northern parcel does not meet that. She noted that the business designation was
strategically chosen for the parcels closest to Highway 55 in order to promote traffic moving
west during peak commuting hours. She stated that this plan would create additional
residential traffic that would add to congestion. She stated that if business parcels are
converted to residential that does not meet the goal of promoting business development. She
stated that another community goal is to spread residential development, and this would
instead add to the concentration of this area. She stated that while she appreciates the benefit
of infrastructure needs, she did not believe that was worth selling out the vision or the time
that was spent creating the current Comprehensive Plan.
Galzki stated that after waiting for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, he does
not believe it would make sense to change this many elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
He stated that there are so many changes that are not in line with the intentions and vision for
the area. He stated that it is a great development, but there are more negatives than positives.
He stated that the residents in that area already have hardships with traffic and the City
attempted to plan to help mitigate those concerns. He stated that he would have a hard time
supporting the concept.
Nielsen stated that she would have a hard time seeing why there would need to be a
uniformity between the two properties. She commented that it would seem strange to have
residential along the Highway 55 corridor. She noted that she does appreciate the
preservation of the wetlands and trees.
Amic stated that this is an elegant design given the topography of the area. He stated that the
tradeoff would be you know what you get with this, but you would not know what you would
get in five years. He stated that while he could be talked into things, it does not seem to
matter with the opinions of the other Commissioners that spoke.
Piper stated that her biggest concern would be related to access of trying to go east. She
commented that it would be senseless to put that many homes into this spot and not provide
the ability to travel all directions.
Reid stated that she sees this differently. She explained that this would be a PUD and
therefore flexibility is provided in density, related to the R-1 comment. She stated that
initially she was concerned with having housing next to Highway 55 but with the layout the
homes will not be that close to the highway. She stated that there is an opportunity that
should be considered. She stated that she does not see a solution for the problem at
Arrowhead and asked if there are plans to deal with that, as Arrowhead will continue to stall
development in this area.
Finke stated that is why the corridor study is continuing to move forward, in attempt to find a
solution for Arrowhead and Chippewa to allow for development of the properties staged into
the future.
Reid stated that she does not think the southern parcel is suitable for business development
and therefore would not be opposed to changing that property to residential.
5
Piper asked if the southern parcel could have access from Highway 55 for business. It was
confirmed that the parcel would only have access from Mohawk.
Reid stated that these parcels will develop eventually. She stated that the concept does a nice
job of making use of what is there while preserving the wetlands, wooded areas and open
space. She noted that one developer cannot support the road and therefore combining the
development of the northern and southern parcels would allow for the construction of the
road. She stated that this is the first development in a long time that provides a variety of
housing products, which is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she likes seeing
a variety of price points for homeowners, which this provides.
Mark Smith provided the range for the pricing of the homes, noting that the twinhomes would
begin around $300,000 while the single-family and townhomes would begin around $500,000
to $600,000. He noted that there is also a large creek that runs through the southern parcel
that would restrict typical business development.
Reid stated that as a taxpayer, the developer is offering to contribute quite a bit of
infrastructure that the City has identified need for. She stated that she sees a lot of
advantages to this development, recognizing that there are tradeoffs. She believed this to be a
good use of the properties and the City would be unsure of what would come in the future.
She noted that the area around this is developed and therefore would not have a problem with
this developing. She commented again that it would not seem the southern parcel would be
appropriate for business development. She stated that although this would include
Comprehensive Plan amendments, there would be a lot received in return. She noted that the
wetlands and trees that are currently visible from Bridgewater will remain as a buffer.
Brett Palmer, 4673 Bluebell Trail, referenced the traffic study, which included three
roundabout options and reconfiguration of the OSI entrance.
Finke stated that the Chippewa and Arrowhead study will continue irrespective of this
development, noting that there will be an open house the following week. He noted that
those elements are part of the corridor study.
Nielsen asked if the Chippewa extension has been included in the last two Comprehensive
Plan process. She stated that if that is important why were the properties not staged
differently with the hope that someone would come in and complete that road.
Reid noted that previous developers walked away from the properties because of the cost for
the road. She stated that one developer will not fund the road and that is why it would make
sense to combine the development of the two parcels into one.
Finke commented that infrastructure is not the only element that goes into staging, noting that
all the elements weighed on the staging proposed.
Amic stated that this would have four football fields of buffer between this and the next
development and he believed that this could be a good deal for the City. He stated that in five
years this will develop anyway, and the City might not like that plan more than this.
Galzki stated that while it is great that someone is offering to fund the infrastructure needs,
the City can fund that as well rather than developing for development sake. He stated that as
good as the plan is and the public improvements that would be provided, the City would be
liable for the wetland mitigation, there would be increased traffic congestion, and traffic
improvements would be needed. He stated that the road and watermain improvements are
6
already included in the City’s CIP and he would prefer to use the Comprehensive Plan to
guide the vision for the City into the future. He stated that he has a hard time believing that
the public improvements would be worth the additional tradeoffs.
Motion by Nester, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Motion carries 4-2 (Amic and Reid opposed). (Absent: Williams)
Finke stated that there will be an open house for the Arrowhead and Chippewa corridor study
the following Tuesday from 5:00 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. He noted that this application will go
before the Park Commission at their next meeting and then to the City Council on November
6th.
6. Public Hearing – Woodbury REI, LLC – 3692 and 3672 Pinto Drive – Rezoning from
the Commercial-Highway to the Commercial-General Zoning District
Schneider stated that the applicant owns the two adjacent lots currently zoned as
Commercial-Highway that are currently undeveloped. He noted that the surrounding parcels
are zoned Commercial-General and the applicant is requesting to rezone their parcels to
Commercial-General as well. He stated that the applicant would like to develop a self-
storage business on the parcels, which would not be allowed in Commercial-Highway but
would be allowed in Commercial-General. He reviewed some of the differences between the
two zoning districts and some elements for the Commission to consider.
Piper stated that she is struggling with the location. Someone provided additional details on
the parcel locations.
Reid asked if the rezoning were approved, would the Commission see the project again to
ensure that the design standards were being met.
Schneider confirmed that the proposed project would still come back to the Commission for
review.
Galzki asked if any of the conditional uses for Commercial-General include items that are no
longer permitted.
Schneider confirmed that those uses would not be permitted as conditional uses.
Charles Schatz, representing the property owner, stressed the fact that this change in zoning
would not in any way affect the future of retail on that site. He stated that this change is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and unifies the existing zoning in the area. He stated
that they have been working with City staff on the design of the project. He noted that the
property is small in nature and therefore this would be a small-scale project and they would
work to make the project architecturally pleasing. He stated that the property owner has tried
very hard to gain development and there has been little to no interest because of the railroad
tracks. He believed that this change would be beneficial and consistent with the goals of the
City.
Piper stated that every successful storage facility usually expands, whereas this would not
have space to expand. She asked if that is why the design would be such that it could be
converted to something else.
Mr. Schatz stated that is not a consideration at this time and does not believe that is a factor in
the current request.
7
Reid opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m.
Robb Stauber, owner of the Northstar Mattress building at 3795 Pinto Drive, stated that he
has nothing against the applicant. He stated that the City cannot say that this property would
not develop into something. He noted that Aldi, Oak Eatery and others developed next to
railroad tracks. He stated that he listened to the last discussion and the statement was made
that the City should not develop for the sake of development. He did not believe it would be
consistent to allow this zoning change. He stated that just because something has not been
developed, does not mean it will not develop in the future. He stated that his retail business
has survived, and he feels that this would be a negative impact on his business. He stated that
he does not want a storage facility next to his business. He noted that he owns multiple
properties in Medina. He urged the City to stay with its vision as this is a valuable piece of
property.
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m.
Piper stated that she has mixed feelings. She stated that when looking at the plan, she gathers
that this would be one story with access off Tower Drive. She asked the amount of physical
property; it was confirmed that the total amount of land would be 1.2 acres. She commented
that the plan looks very crowded.
Amic stated that this is a horrible piece of land and did not believe that a lot of good
development would be interested. He stated if not this, he would question what would want
to go on that site. He stated that he would not have a good reason to deny the request.
Nielsen agreed that this is a horrible piece of land. She questioned if this would develop on
the site just to fill it up.
Galzki stated that in his opinion, this type of request would be one step away from the
allowed use. He noted that all the surrounding uses are already guided Commercial-General
and when he looks at the four uses that would no longer be allowed, he does not see that
would prohibit something that could perhaps be interested in developing on the site. He
stated that he would have a hard time not wanting to grant the request as the items that would
no longer be allowed with the zoning change already exist in the area. He stated that he does
not have a problem with the zoning change.
Nester agreed that this is different from the previous discussion as this does not involve a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to staging request. She stated that she is in agreement with
the proposed change.
Reid stated that she would also be fine with the change in zoning. She noted that the corner
currently does not look good and the railroad tracks will be a barrier for retail. She stated that
if it is a nice-looking storage facility that includes screening, it would not be that visible.
Piper asked if there is a shaking from the railroad tracks that could impact stored items.
Schatz replied that they could look into it but was not concerned because of the distance
between the site and railroad tracks.
Motion by Piper, seconded by Galzki, to recommend approval of the rezoning from
Commercial-Highway to Commercial-General. Motion carries 4-1-1 (Nielsen opposed)
(Amic abstained). (Absent: Williams)
8
Finke noted that this will also move forward to the City Council on November 6, 2019.
7. Approval of the August 13, 2019 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion by Amic, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the August 13, 2019, Planning
Commission minutes with noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent:
Williams)
8. Council Meeting Schedule
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Reid volunteered
to attend in representation of the Commission.
9. Adjourn
Motion by Piper, seconded by Galzki, to adjourn the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.