Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-10-2021 PC Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday August 10, 2021 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nielsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper, Justin Popp, Braden Rhem and Timothy Sedabres. Absent: Planning Commissioner Peter Galzki and Ron Grajczyk Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke and Planning Intern Colette Baumgardner 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda No comments made. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings Finke provided an update on the recent activities of the Council. 4. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. 5. Public Hearing – Medina Townhome Development LLC – 1432 County Road 29 – Planned Unit Development General Plan for 23 Unit Townhome Development – PID 3011823220004 Finke presented a request for a Planned Unit Development general plan for a 23-unit townhome development at 1432 County Road 29. He noted that the Commission reviewed a concept plan this spring and provided comments, as did the City Council. He stated that the site is guided for high density residential development and is zoned R-4. He stated that the applicant has requested a PUD which would provide for flexibility from some zoning standards in order to better match the purposes and objectives of the City. He stated that the narrative provided by the applicant explains how they believe the development meets those objectives. He reviewed the adjacent land uses. He displayed the proposed site plan and highlighted the location of the different elements. He noted that the applicant proposed to construct the start of the looped road that would ultimately be connected to the south to provide the primary access. He stated that this development would result in a density of 11 units per acre which would be lower than the high-density range, noting that the Comprehensive Plan allows for a lower density. He noted that two units would be reserved for affordable housing. He reviewed the dimensional standards proposed and compared that to the zoning district standards in order to identify the flexibilities requested. He provided details related to architectural design and the proposed materials, noting that as proposed the development would exceed the architectural standards. He noted that there is a lot of garage door frontage, which could be broken up with windows on the garage doors. He provided details on tree preservation and landscaping. He stated that he is available for questions related to transportation and utilities. He noted that staff recommends that the trail be graded, and the stormwater system be designed to handle the trail construction in the future. He 2 noted that the Council will have additional discussion as to whether the trail construction will be required at this time. He stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions noted in the staff report. Shane LaFave, applicant, thanked the Commission for allowing this presentation. He stated that during the concept plan this was a 24-unit proposal and they decreased to 23 units in order to accommodate additional guest parking and snow storage. He stated that the entry drive was widened to accommodate two turn lanes, otherwise the development has the same elements as the concept plan. He noted that the units would be three- and four-bedroom units to target families that would like to live in the area but perhaps could not purchase a home. Nielsen asked if the applicant has concern with any of the staff recommended conditions. LaFave commented that there has been a lot of discussion with staff and the Council and believed that the plan has improved because of that input. He stated that he did not have any issues with the recommended conditions. He agreed that glass should be added to the garage doors. He referenced the trail mentioned and noted that they would prefer not to build that trail as it would be removed if the road is widened in the future and if constructed at this time, it would only connect to the private property to the north. Piper thanked the applicant for the improvements to the tot lot. Nielsen asked if there are plans to widen the road in the future. Finke replied that one of the recommended conditions is that a portion of the incoming road is widened which will provide better alignment. Nielsen clarified that her comment was related to the possible impacts to the trail if CR 29 is widened in the future. Finke commented that road would only be widened to provide additional turn lanes into the sites along with the addition of a median. He stated that those are part of the discussion between the entities involved and hoped that additional feedback would be received from those entities prior to the Park Commission meeting. He noted that the plan would be to accommodate for a future trail through grading and storm water management. Sedabres asked if the intersection would align to the west with Gateway. Finke replied that this would align with Gateway. He stated that ultimately the continuation of the road to the east will be dependent on the development to the east. He stated that if the curve cannot be lessened, the access to the east would need to be further to the south to align with Holiday. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Bob Braun (1472 Baker Park Road) property owner to the north, asked about the setback and how large the buildings would be. He asked if the buildings would be next to his home and whether the setback related to the building structure or the patios. Finke replied that the setback is 20 feet for the building structure. Braun referenced the trail mentioned for the west side. He noted that about five years ago the Park Commission had multiple meetings on where the trail should be, and it was determined 3 to be the west side of the street. He stated that he has concern with placing a trail on this side as well. He asked if the median would restrict his ability to take a left turn out of his property. Finke replied that the median would be south of Gateway and would not impact his private property. Braun stated that the applicant has been good to accommodate the comments received throughout the process. He noted that there are trees about 18 feet from the property line and provided the measurements from the road, asking if any of those trees could be preserved as they are the largest on the property. Finke stated that the two northwestern most trees would be preserved with three additional to be preserved along Baker Park Road. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Popp commented that this is a great demonstration and model of a project which has incorporated the comments from the Commission, Council, and neighbors. He stated that overall, the design itself, with the addition of glass to the garage doors, is great. He stated that he feels good about this proposal and approving this with the stated conditions. Piper agreed that she feels good about this application and how it has evolved. She again thanked the developer for incorporating the tot lot. Rhem agreed that the applicant did a great job incorporating the comments received. Sedabres agreed noting the architectural design and commented on how that has improved. He stated that the retaining wall and privacy fence seems tight to those three patio units. Nielsen stated that she applauds the applicant for trying to make this work on the property. She agreed that she would like to see the glass added to the garage doors as mentioned. Motion by Piper, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of the planned unit development general plan with the conditions noted in the staff report and windows in garage doors. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Galzki and Grajczyk) 6. Public Hearing – Stetler Enterprises LLC – 500 Hamel Road – Preliminary Plat for 17 Unit Detached Villa Development on 6.5 Acre (approximately 5 net acres) PID 1211823310048 Finke presented a plat for 27 slab on grade villas at 500 Hamel Road. He stated that the property is guided and zoned Uptown Hamel which allows for commercial or residential development. He stated that this project also went through concept plan review earlier this summer and both the Commission and Council provided comments. He reviewed the zoning of adjacent land uses. He displayed the proposed plat which would include a looped private road with villas fronting on the private road, with garages facing internally and the front porches facing Hamel Road. He stated that this proposal would have a density of 3.5 units per acre, which is slightly below the Uptown Hamel density range. He noted that a fairly significant portion of the site is encumbered by the stormwater pond on the west end that serves a much broader area than the subject site. He stated that the feedback at the concept level was to exclude a significant portion of the ponding area for the sake of density which results in a density of 4.4 units per acre which would fall slightly over the minimum density 4 range. He noted that this request includes a variance to the maximum front setback from Hamel Road in order to accommodate the 30-foot-wide sewer easement along Hamel Road. He noted that during the concept review it was determined to be a reasonable request. He stated that the Uptown Hamel district requires a site plan review and noted that more specific renderings will be provided upon final plat review. He stated that sketches were provided within the report. He noted that the applicant hopes to construct buildable lots to sell to builders. He stated that the sketches provided thus far appear to meet the architectural and material standards of the zoning district. He provided details on tree preservation and noted that staff recommends that the landscaping as proposed be considered sufficient for the sake of tree replacement. He noted that there was a lot of discussion on the soil conditions and a draft response action plan was provided. He noted that the applicant will continue to work with the MPCA. He stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions noted. Popp asked if the hardcover percentage is based on the total acreage or the adjusted acreage. He stated that in either case he did not believe the 90 percent would be exceeded. Finke replied that he was unsure but believed that was calculated on the site with the pond. Popp noted that the applicant plans to sell the finished lots to builders and asked if that would be one builder or multiple builders. He asked whether irrigation could be sourced from the pond. He asked if there has been documented concerns with leaching or runoff when using pond water for irrigation. Finke stated that has not been in the discussion, but he could speak with the City Engineer on that matter. He stated that the City cannot have a condition of approval that would require only one builder, even though that might be the intention of the builder at this time. He stated that having a design pallet would be important in the case there are multiple builders. Piper commented that there is no space for kids in this development. She asked if this development would be intended for seniors only. She noted that there would be a strong chance that children would live in the development. She noted that while the applicant might target a certain demographic, that does not mean that people with children would not move in, and the closest park is a half mile away. She commented that there does not seem to be any space where a tot lot could be added. Finke commented that this is admittedly the furthest property in Uptown Hamel from Hamel Legion Park. He noted that half mile is the buffer used for park planning. Piper asked if anyone else shares her concern. Nielsen stated that she does not because of the location of Hamel Legion Park and Hunter. Finke clarified that the walk would be a half mile to the park from this property. Nielsen noted that there are homes further than a half mile from a park. Piper commented that this development would have a higher density. Nielsen commented that these are primarily two-bedroom units and did not believe that would lend itself to families with children. Finke stated that there would be passive open space within the development. 5 Popp referenced the concept for Uptown Hamel, noting that this style is different than he would have anticipated. He believed that there would be community space in such development and that is not included. He stated that this is different than what he had in mind and was conscious that this could set a precedent. Todd Olin, representing the applicant, stated that this proposal represents the collaboration between the developer and the City through the comments received during the concept review. He noted that while the site appears large, it is restricted by wetland and the regional stormwater basin. He stated that the developable area is restricted in addition by the 30-foot sewer easement. He noted that they attempted to work around those elements in order to fit in this development. He stated that this is also a transitional property between an urban setting in Uptown Hamel and existing residential on the other side. He noted that Mr. Stetler has taken several different approaches to potential development for the site over the past five years, obtaining input from the neighboring properties throughout that process. He stated that while this plan may not exactly fit within the vision for Uptown Hamel, it provides a necessary transition and then also provides a solution to develop a site that was previously used for dumping. He stated this proposal includes helical piers in order to minimize impact to the soils. He noted that they have also worked closely with the City in regard to public utilities to avoid the fill area as much as possible. He stated that while this may not fit the expected vision for Uptown Hamel zoning, this does fit for the type of homes that will be marketed towards empty nesters or perhaps young professionals. He stated that the pieces are starting to fall in place, noting that they obtained a grading easement from the neighboring property owner in order to provide for alignment. He stated that they are satisfied with the conditions as recommended by staff. He asked that the Commission consider approval of their requests. Fred Stelter, stated that he met with the neighbor to the east the previous day and they identified the trail extension that would link to the entire trail system, which would be a community benefit provided by this development. He stated that they also offered that neighbor access from their street if they would like to develop their property in the future. He commented that this has been a long journey to solve the various puzzles to this property. He noted that they are not requesting assistance or TIF financing for their project. Piper mentioned Three Rivers Park District, specifically the park and trail and asked if this would impact those plans. Finke commented that this property is well east of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail. He noted that the Park District has the Lake Sarah Regional Trail, roughly along the same corridor along Hamel Road. He noted that there is a conceptual corridor and noted that this would construct a trail on the north side of Hamel Road that could eventually be used as part of the larger corridor in the future. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. No comments made. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Sedabres commented that this is a different concept than he was thinking for Uptown Hamel. He recognized that the applicant stated they attempted different concepts and noted that he would be interested in seeing a denser development proposal. He stated that in terms of the developable space in Uptown Hamel, this is a large parcel and one of the few opportunities to get more density. He recognized the demand for villas but would like to see higher density. 6 He stated that if this option is selected, he would like to see more of a plaza concept that he would expect to see but recognized that may reduce density. He stated that there is flexibility in Uptown Hamel for multiple stories and variation, which is not seen in this development. He stated that the stone appears to be on the interior of the development and not facing Hamel Road. Rhem stated that the density was mentioned in the last discussion but believed that the parking requirements could not be met for higher density. Finke stated that the parking requirement would be similar regardless of use in terms of parking per unit and guest parking. He noted that parking would be accommodated through garages, driveways, and the street parking. Rhem stated that while this is not the density envisioned, this would be a great transition between the existing residential and Uptown Hamel. Piper stated that there does not appear to be guest parking. Finke stated that there are two garage spaces, two driveway spaces, and street parking. Piper commented that she believes the density is too high for this site. She asked the width of the road; it was noted to be 28 feet wide. Popp stated that he finds this challenging. He noted that he does see this as a missed opportunity to fulfil high density or mixed-use vision from the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that on the other hand he recognizes that this proposal operates well as a transition on the edge of Uptown Hamel and integrates well with the existing residential development. He referenced the south facing portion of the site on Hamel Road, noting that there appears to be two trees per unit. He asked if the landscaping could be increased. He referenced the tree preservation calculations, noting that this is lower on the density scale and tree/landscaping element. He stated that he would like to see additional landscaping and trees. He again noted that he would like to ensure that there would be no concern with leaching or contaminants if pond water is used for irrigation. He stated that not including a plaza would be another missed opportunity. Piper asked if there would be a homeowners association. Nielsen stated that she does not have a concern with a place for children or lack of tot lot. She applauded the applicant for spending five years in attempt to develop the property. She stated that this is a difficult piece of property and likes this proposal. Motion by Rhem, seconded by Popp, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and variance with additional landscaping. Motion carries 4 – 1 (Sedabres opposed). (Absent: Galzki and Grajczyk) 7. Public Hearing – All Energy Solar – 2382 Hamel Road – Conditional Use Permit for Installation of 112 Panel Solar Array – PID 0911823340002 Baumgardner presented a request for a conditional use permit from All Energy Solar at 2382 Hamel Road. She stated that the applicant would like to install two solar arrays totaling 112 panels and reviewed the proposed dimensions. She stated that the project site is zoned rural residential and 19.7 acres in size. She stated that the adjacent lots are farmland or vacant, with two occupied residential properties. She stated that the conditional use permit would 7 allow for the additional solar panels and reviewed the conditional use permit review criteria. She reviewed the landscaping criteria and noted that the existing landscaping meets those needs. She stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions noted in the staff report. Popp referenced the total square footage and asked for clarification. Baumgardner stated that the 2,700 would be the total surface area of the panels themselves which has a 35-degree tilt. Popp stated that he attempted to do a site visit the previous day, but the owner was not home. He asked the distance between the vegetation and proposed solar array. Baumgardner replied that calculation was not included in the submitted site plan. Danielle DeMar, All Energy Solar, provided the distance calculation. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Steve Lerum stated that this project would provide benefit and he would like to maintain a good relationship with his neighbors. He stated that his intent was not to upset any neighbors. He stated that they are simply attempting to benefit the neighborhood and community and believes solar energy is embraced by Medina. DeMar referenced the public comments received in writing prior to the meeting tonight. She noted that some concern was related to electromagnetic waves and provided clarification. She referenced the lifespan of the panels and noted that they could replace the equipment if necessary and there is very little land disruption for installation and replacement of panels. She stated that the Lerums are looking to offset their electrical load through this project and all the required setbacks and code conditions are met through this request. Nielsen stated that written comments in opposition were received from Rebecca Backous at 3100 Leewood Drive. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Piper commented that she knows this land well and the neighboring property could probably see the array from the third level of their home. She stated that if that is the objection from a visual standpoint, it should not be an issue. She referenced the environmental issues that exist and noted that anyone that can find a way to use alternative energy, within rules and regulations, should do so. Rhem stated that this follows the conditions and requirements, and he supports the project. Sedabres asked if these would be owned or leased by the homeowner. It was confirmed that these would be owned. He stated that the property owner has the land available for this use and believes that this is the right thing to do for the environment. He asked if the location on the lot would make a difference in terms of the complaint from the neighboring property owner. Popp expressed support for the project. Nielsen also expressed support for the project. 8 Motion by Piper, seconded by Sedabres, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions within the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Galzki and Grajczyk) 8. Approval of the July 13, 2021 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to approve the July 13, 2021, Planning Commission minutes with the noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Galzki and Grajczyk) 9. Council Meeting Schedule Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Rhem volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 10. Adjourn Motion by Piper, seconded by Rhem, to adjourn the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.