HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-13-2021 PC Minutes 1
CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday April 13, 2021
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nielsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Chairperson Nielsen read a statement explaining that this meeting continues to be held in a
virtual format because of the ongoing pandemic and provided instructions on how members
of the public can participate.
Present: Planning Commissioners Peter Galzki, Ron Grajczyk, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper,
Justin Popp, Braden Rhem and Timothy Sedabres.
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke and City Planner Deb Dion
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
No comments made.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings
DesLauriers reported that the Council met briefly on April 6th noting that all the items for that
meeting were included on the Consent Agenda.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update.
5. Public Hearing – Stetler Enterprises LLC – 500 Hamel Road – Concept Plan
Review for 17-Unit Villa Development – PID 1211823310048
Finke presented a request for a concept plan review for a 17-unit detached villa development
proposed at 500 Hamel Road. He stated that the subject site is just over six acres in size with
4.9 net developable acres. He provided details on the current zoning and allowed density for
the site as well as details on the surrounding properties and uses. He presented the concept
plan which includes a looped private road to go between the two rows of villas. He provided
details on the general layout, density, setbacks, and existing easement. He stated that the
developer would create sellable lots for a builder to buy construct upon. He stated that
examples of the intentions of the developed product have been provided within the packet.
He reviewed the allowed building materials and design elements included with the Uptown
Hamel district. He noted that the sketch provided by the applicant seems to be consistent
with those requirements. He noted that staff provided comments related to infrastructure
within the report. He noted that the low volume of traffic would not be anticipated to create
issues for Hamel Road, compared to the density that could be supported on the site. He
reviewed the recommendations related to the suggested trail connection. He stated that the
stormwater pond on the site to the west was developed to support this development as well.
He stated that both phase one and phase two environmental assessments were completed for
the site and both note various levels of debris buried on the property, some of which includes
hazardous material and therefore best practices should be in place during construction to
allow monitoring, sampling, and proper disposal of hazardous materials. He stated that the
2
utility installation would cause the deepest excavation because the homes are proposed to be
slab on grade. He stated that any development on this site would need to address these issues
and therefore it would be helpful to have someone on board on behalf of the applicant to lead
those actions. He welcomed any questions the Commission may have.
Mr. Stetler, applicant, welcomed any input the Commission may have on the site. He noted
that he has been talking with staff and reviewing options for the site for the past four to five
years. He stated that he has attempted to develop an approach that would minimize the soil
correction issues on the site and the need to dig in the debris. He stated that he has done a
number of projects ranging from five lots to 115 lots throughout the metro area and has
experience with this type of project. He noted that while this has challenges, so have other
projects that they have been able to successfully navigate. He stated that if they receive
positive input and decide to move forward, he would hope to select a final builder and
provide a clear example of what the elevations would look like as they would move forward
with preliminary plat.
Piper asked the price point that would be anticipated for the homes.
Stetler replied that these would be single-family homes and would estimate a range in price
point would begin in the upper $400,000’s and go up from there.
Piper asked if there is a hill to the north that goes down to Highway 55.
Stetler commented that the site seems fairly level other than the slope towards the wetland.
He commented that he has not studied the topography to the north.
Sedabres commented that there was a reference to an alternative 30 twinhome concept and
asked if that is still under consideration.
Finke stated that the applicant originally submitted a concept that included 30 twinhomes,
with essentially the same layout with narrower lots. He stated that was withdrawn in
preparation for the hearing and in response to the market demand for villas.
Stetler commented that in discussion with people familiar with the area and real estate, the
appetite for twinhomes was not nearly as great as single-family villas. He commented that
the builders he spoke with had much more interest in the villa product and therefore they
withdrew that plan and chose to move forward with the villa product.
Sedabres referenced the 30-foot setback due to sewer and asked if that is specific to this
property or something that exists throughout Uptown Hamel.
Finke replied that issue exists for this property and the two to the east.
Galzki asked if there is concern that once the homes are built and sold that notification should
be provided related to the underlying debris field.
Finke commented that he is not aware of notification that is required, noting that the phase
one and phase two assessments would be public record. He stated that he could inquire
further about potential notification requirements of those records, but he was not aware of
any.
3
Nielsen commented that she is also concerned with the debris on the site. She stated that staff
laid out several recommendations and asked if the applicant agrees with those
recommendations.
Stetler commented that in general he does not have issues with the staff recommendations but
would like to continue discussions with the City Engineer related to the placement of the
watermain. He stated that there is buried building debris on the site and six feet of clean fill
on top of that, which exceeds the requirement for a top barrier by the MPCA. He stated that
the MPCA views this as a brownfield and if there is a viable way to leave that in place, they
favor that as opposed to digging it up and moving it somewhere else. He stated that if the
material is dug up it needs to be properly disposed of and replaced with clean fill. He stated
that the builders he has spoken with are familiar with this type of construction that would
minimize disturbance to the debris field. He was hopeful that his engineer and the City
Engineer could review the watermain placement if this moves forward.
Nielsen asked if Stetler would be comfortable with his family living on this site.
Stetler confirmed that he would be comfortable with that as the material is safely below six
feet of clean fill and there are no concerns with leeching.
Grajczyk commented that the debris issue has his attention and asked if there are any
groundwater monitoring wells near this site.
Finke replied that there are no monitoring wells at this point. He stated that the testing that
has been done and City excavation for the pond on the west side had similar constraints. He
stated that the City disposed of hazardous material that was excavated in a similar process
that would be followed for this project.
Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.
No comments.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:35
Galzki commented that he lives in the neighborhood south of this proposed development and
therefore has his own personal concerns related to the development as a whole. He stated that
he does have concern with the debris field and excavation for utilities. He commented that he
would like to see an extension of the trail and potentially some curb and gutter in order to
maintain consistency from west to east. He commented that this is an active, pedestrian
friendly area and that trail connection would help to alleviate concerns. He stated that it will
be nice to see drainage plans and stormwater reports if this moves forward.
Grajczyk commented that he would agree that it would be nice to see additional details but
recognized that this is a concept plan review. He stated that he would also support the trail as
mentioned. He stated that he likes the architectural features in the examples and believed
those would fit well with the surrounding homes. He stressed the importance of safety and
noted that he is concerned with the buried debris and disturbance that would occur when
burying utilities. He stated that he would feel more comfortable if there were a clay cap to
help seal and contain the debris and provide better segregation for those that will live above
it.
Piper commented that she agrees with the statements made thus far and noted that she is also
concerned with the buried debris. She asked if the City could require a clay cap/cover.
4
Finke stated that he cannot provide an answer to that question. He stated that there are
guidelines in place for development and was unsure if the City could go beyond those
requirements. He stated that he could report further on that if the applicant chooses to move
forward past this concept.
Piper referenced the square footage of the lots and asked if there would be a restriction on the
size of the home that would be built on the smaller lots.
Finke stated that there would be 16 feet between the units and the units would be set back 25
feet from the internal road, or 30 feet where the sewer easement exists. He stated that
Uptown Hamel allows for significant coverage and higher density compared to other areas of
Medina.
Piper stated that she agrees with this so far and is eager to see more detail.
Popp commented that he agrees with many of the comments made thus far and echoed
concerns with safety already mentioned. He referenced the design considerations and stated
that it is important that as someone approached the Uptown Hamel district from the west, this
would be the first impression of the area someone would get and therefore the view should be
pleasing. He stated that he would like to see a sidewalk/trail on the north side of Hamel Road
in order to support the vision of a walkable community. He stated that if the easement moves
forward he would like to see additional enhancements that would make it aesthetically
pleasing greenspace. He stated that he is eager to see how the applicant will address
landscaping and greenspace. He stated that his primary focus rests on the safety concerns
that have already been raised.
Rhem commented that if this moves forward the largest element will be how the debris field
will be mitigated and recognized that more details would be provided in the future. He stated
that he would support the reduction in setback because of the sewer easement. He stated that
to him, it would also make sense to exclude the pond in terms of density.
Sedabres thanked the applicant for reviewing this recognizing the constraints and challenges
of the site. He stated that the concept of what Uptown Hamel will become is interesting and
this would be the first development since the regulations were changed. He stated that he had
in mind less of the detached single-family residential and more matching the urban downtown
vision with brick façade and multiple stories or height differences. He stated that he would
feel this site could even support more density. He stated that perhaps single -family
residential would be okay on the west side, but the group should then consider where mixed
use development would fit within the overall district.
Nielsen stated that she shares the concern with the soils but trusts that would it be mediated.
She stated that if the applicant agrees with staff recommendations she would support this
moving forward. She also stated that she would support removing the pond from the density
calculation and confirmed the consensus of the Commission will that element as well as the
reduced setback because of the sewer easement.
Stetler thanked the Commission for the comments and input tonight. He noted that he started
looking at this for an apartment building site but as he looked at the site more and more, with
the single-family to the south and townhomes to the west, it appeared that a lower density
residential project would fit better into those surroundings. He believed that this would be a
nice addition to the area. He noted that because of the setbacks this parcel would never
provide a true, close to the street urban feel. He hoped that the engineering staff can look
5
creatively in order to attempt to limit rooting around in the debris field to the extent possible
related to the watermain design and placement.
Nielsen thanked the applicant for bringing this forward and noted that this seems to be a nice
plan for the lot.
Finke commented that the intent would be to bring this forward to the Council for comments
at its next meeting.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings (continued)
Reid provided an update on workshops held by the Council related to the Diamond Lake
Regional Trail. She also provided a brief summary of the activity that occurred at the regular
March Council meetings.
Nielsen stated that she thought there was a tot lot included in the townhome plan.
Reid confirmed that there is a tot lot, but the concern was with the lack of greenspace for
older children.
6. Approval of the February 9, 2021 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion by Galzki, seconded by Grajczyk, to approve the February 9, 2021, Planning
Commission minutes with the noted changes.
A roll call vote was performed:
Galzki aye
Grajczyk aye
Piper aye
Popp aye
Rhem aye
Sedabres aye
Nielsen aye
Motion carries unanimously.
7. Council Meeting Schedule
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Popp volunteered
to attend in representation of the Commission.
8. Adjourn
Motion by Piper, seconded by Sedabres, to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 p.m. Motion
carries unanimously.