Loading...
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.