HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-11-2022 PC Minutes 1
CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday January 11, 2022
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nielsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Nielsen read a statement explaining that the meeting is being held in a virtual format due to
the ongoing pandemic. She provided instructions for public participation.
Present: Planning Commissioners Ron Grajczyk, John Jacob, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper,
Justin Popp, Braden Rhem and Timothy Sedabres.
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke, City Planner Deb Dion, and Planning
Intern Colette Baumgardner.
2. Changes to Agenda
Nielsen noted that typically the elections would occur at the beginning of the meeting but
have been placed at the end in order to prioritize the public hearing items. She requested to
move the Public Comments item to be considered as Item 10.
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Rhem, to move agenda Item 4, Public Comments on Items
Not on the Agenda, to be considered as Item 10.
A roll call vote was performed:
Grajczyk aye
Jacob aye
Piper aye
Popp aye
Rhem aye
Sedabres aye
Nielsen aye
Motion carried.
3. Introduction of Planning Commissioners
Jacob introduced himself to the Commission. The other members of the Commission also
introduced themselves and welcomed Jacob to the Commission.
4. Update from City Council Proceedings
Reid reported that the Council met recently to discuss rooftop elements and to review the
EAW related to the proposed Cates Industrial Park project. She stated that the Council met
on January 4th in closed session to discuss possible land acquisition.
Nielsen noted that Reid was again appointed as the Council Liaison to the Commission for
2022.
2
Reid commented that she enjoys working with the Planning Commission and therefore
requested reappointment.
5. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update.
6. Public Hearing – Meander Park and Boardwalk Development – Medina
Ventures, LLC – PUD Concept Plan for Commercial Development and
Three-Lot Residential Subdivision (PID 0211823330003)
Finke presented a request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for a commercial
and residential development and provided details on the subject site and adjacent land uses.
He stated that the applicant is considering an event center, restaurant, retail, and daycare
center for the commercial portion of the site. He noted that three residential units would be
proposed for the north side of Meander Road. He explained that the property south of
Meander is zoned and designated for commercial use while the property to the north is zoned
low density residential. He stated that although a PUD is requested to allow flexibility from
the underlying zoning districts, the underlying zoning regulations are used for comparison
purposes. He stated that the proposed development would by and large meet the standards of
the commercial highway district with the exception of the drive aisle setback. He stated that
in reference to the residential portion of the project, the applicant would like to use an
attached housing product in order to meet the density of the zoning district and because of the
location of the wetlands. He stated that recommendations were included from staff related to
the commercial and residential development proposals. He summarized the additional staff
comments related to transportation and trail connectivity. He welcomed input from the
Commission.
Piper asked if the large building schematic framed with a tree inside would be the event
center.
Finke commented that he believes that would be what is labeled as the conservatory which
would be attached to the event venue.
Jacob asked for more explanation on the internal transportation plan.
Finke stated that there would be a proposed access on Meander, noting that the main spine
into the site would have parking spaces adjacent. He noted that staff has suggested redesign
of the parking lot to identify that as the main connection. He welcomed input from the
Commission on whether there should be a public street connecting Meander and Tamarack or
whether the access should be provided through a private drive with cross easements for
access.
Jacob asked if the red dotted line would be a frontage road.
Finke replied that is the utility plan showing conceptual sewer and water mains.
Jacob commented that he likes the concept and if there is going to be a high volume of traffic,
there should be thought for a safe mode for people to access their vehicles and maneuver in
and out of the area.
Rhem referenced the commercial portion of the development and asked what flexibility the
PUD would provide in this concept.
3
Finke commented that the primary flexibility would be related to building design and
materials. He noted that the other flexibility would be related to the boardwalk spaces which
go amongst all the uses. He explained that the concept would be to have outdoor spaces as an
important part of the uses on the site and provided additional details on how that would relate
to the commercial district.
Christopher Pederson, Medina Ventures LLC, commented that he also lives within 500 feet
of the subject site. He stated that he is very excited about the project and chose to enter into
the endeavor because he has been a Medina resident since 2015 and has worked in the city for
decades. He stated that during that time he has seen a lot of growth and a demand for
restaurants and recreation. He stated that his idea for this development would combine
multiple things onto a property that has a large amount of wetland and only a smaller portion
of developable property. He stated that they attempted to provide an aesthetically pleasing
development that provides amenities and services that are needed along with the ability to
enjoy the natural area of the wetland. He explained that the boardwalk would be a key
component of the development for that purpose. He noted that the three story building would
most likely not be three stories. He stated that the intent is for people to feel like they are
immersed into a wetland area while they are able to visit a restaurant, attend an event, or just
gather. He stated that his intent is to receive any input from the Commission and residents
that may be present in order to ensure that this development would benefit the community for
years to come.
Nielsen asked the applicant for thoughts on the staff comments for the traffic flow.
Pederson stated that they are trying to balance the needed parking without creating a giant
parking lot with too much parking. He stated that the entrance on the south side was placed
based on the comments from the City Engineer that there should be a distance of at least 400
feet from Fields of Medina West. He stated that having a road on the east side of the daycare
would require that building to be moved to the west, but they would be open to that. He
stated that they have gone through multiple renditions of the design and can consider a looped
system. He stated that there is a dead property to the east and was unsure that there would be
any sort of access to the east. He agreed that it would make sense from the standpoint of
safety but also acknowledged that it would require cooperation from another party.
Popp asked if there has been thought to ecofriendly design.
Pederson commented that he has been in the solar industry and understands the need for
green roofs and sustainability. He stated that they do have a LEED certified engineer
working on the project and have also discussed eco friendliness with the architect. He stated
that there is potential but some of those decisions would be budget dependent. He
commented that they will incorporate the right type of sustainable design that is practical for
the site as well.
Popp asked if there is a minimum parking stall number in mind.
Pederson commented that the range at this time would be 215 to 240, depending on the ratio
determined for the event center and the type of retail. He believed that they could achieve the
parking needs with 235 stalls or less. He commented that the target demographic often
utilizes other modes of transportation and therefore there is often less demand on parking. He
cautioned against building too much parking as times are changing with more use of things
like Uber. He stated that he would hate to build too much parking.
4
Sedabres referenced the residential component and asked for details on the proposed product
and density.
Pederson commented that he believed that four units could be fit on the northern property.
He commented that there is a lot of west facing wetland with relatively little upland compared
to the wetland. He stated that the density in the adjacent neighborhood is similar, the homes
are just larger. He stated that he would like to have three or four high scale townhomes that
look out on the wetland. He stated that he would prefer to keep the homes close together in
order to preserve more greenspace and be more visually aesthetic. He noted that he could
also adjust the road to not be as long and winding.
Nielsen asked if the applicant has any concern with the recommendations of staff.
Pederson commented that he does not have issues with the staff comments. He noted that one
of his main concerns is that this development is different and asked how the future
development of Tamarack Drive would be beneficial to this property. He noted that this
property would be boutique design focused on preservation of natural features and wetlands.
He was unsure the benefit that would be provided to this development by the Tamarack Drive
project in return for the financial contribution that would be required from the property. He
referenced the boardwalk and stated that his goal is to make the boardwalk a part of the
wetland. He asked for clarification on the latitude that they would have to get the boardwalk
as close to, or through the wetland.
Finke commented that the Tamarack Drive study calculated the projected traffic to be created
in this area. He recognized that looked more broadly and assumed that Tamarack Drive
would be a primary point of access for the subject site. He commented that it is fair to
recognize how the traffic generation and distribution would work, but also noted that there
would be benefit to having a traffic signal at Tamarack and 55. He stated that related to the
wetland buffer requirements and the boardwalk, he believed the PUD could provide the
flexibility in terms of the buffer. He stated that if supported by the Commission and Council,
perhaps the applicant would engage an ecological consultant that could provide more details
on the functions and value of the buffer that would fall beneath the boardwalk.
Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m.
No comments.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
Grajczyk commented that this is a unique area and appreciated the input of the developer on
his intent for the property. He commented on the vision the City has and noted that this
proposal would provide amenities that the community desires. He commented that he would
want to ensure there is accessibility for everyone in a safe fashion. He stated that he liked the
timber beam framed structures with a more modern look. He stated that a good mix of
materials would coincide with the material requirements of the City. He asked if this would
also be a good area for a bus stop for public transportation, as that could benefit the residents
in the neighborhoods.
Jacob had no further comments.
Piper commented that she is impressed with what she sees.
5
Popp commented that the concept plan is well done, fits with the vision and cultural values of
the community, and would provide amenities for the neighboring residents. He stated that he
also appreciated the connection to the park at Fields of Medina and potential connection to
the Diamond Lake Regional Trail (DLRT). He stated that he could support lesser parking as
long as the requirements are met. He commented that it is a beautiful concept and he is
supporting.
Rhem applauded the applicant and architect for a great design that fits well with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Sedabres stated that this is a great proposal. He noted that the thought of the event center and
conservatory is great and fits well with the natural setting. He stated that there are a lot of
separate buildings in the commercial portion. He stated that he would be open to lesser
parking and would be supportive of the request for a second entry. He stated that this is a big
development with a lot of induvial units.
Nielsen applauded the design and looked forward to visiting the development in the future.
She stated that she would like to see more of a designated road for access. She noted that she
would also support connection to the DLRT. She stated that boardwalks are a great feature
and would like to see that integrated into the wetland.
Pederson appreciated the review and input from the Commission.
Finke stated that the intent would be to present to the Park Commission on January 19th and
to the City Council on February 1st.
7. Public Hearing – Marsh Pointe Preserve – BPS Properties LLC – 4250-4292 Arrowhead
Drive – Preliminary Plat and PUD General Plan of Development for 30-Lot Subdivision
Finke presented a Preliminary Plat and General Plan of Development for a 30-lot subdivision
on approximately 12 net acres. He noted that the Commission, Park Commission and City
Council previously provided input on the concept plan. He stated that the density would be
proposed at 2.5 units per acre which falls within the range for low density residential. He
reviewed the surrounding land uses. He displayed an illustrative design which shows an
access from Arrowhead Drive to the west and terminating in a cul-de-sac. He noted that most
of the sites would be single loaded from the street. He explained that there is not enough
space to front lots on both sides of the road through most of the development because of the
width from the northern property line to the required wetland buffer on the south. He stated
that there are some wetland impacts to widening the roadway to provide access to the eastern
portion of the site, therefore the application would be subject to approval of the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) replacement plan. He stated that this proposed development would
be low density residential which has a density range of 25 to 36 units for the site, noting that
the applicant proposes 30 lots for the site. He reviewed requirements of the R-1 and R-2
districts, which would allow low density residential, and noted that the applicant proposes a
PUD. He stated that the proposal is similar to the R-2 zoning district standards and stated
that the applicant has provided a narrative explaining why he believes a PUD would be
supported by the proposed development. He noted that the applicant proposes single level
homes throughout the development and is open to that being a requirement of the PUD, with
more narrow lots. He stated that the proposed cul-de-sac is longer than the 750 feet limit in
Code. He explained that because of the location of the wetlands and park location there is no
alternative to provide access throughout the site. He provided details on the proposed
architectural design and related to transportation, highlighting the recommendations from
staff related to transportation that have been incorporated into the plan since the concept
6
review. He reviewed the tree preservation and landscaping details for the application,
providing additional details on the waiver request from the applicant.
Jacob commented that it appears a fair number of trees are being removed adjacent to
Arrowhead Drive. He asked if there would be any sort of natural buffer that would be
maintained.
Finke commented that there is new planting proposed along the western edge, but because of
the grading in that area, essentially all vegetation would be removed.
Jacob asked if there would be a natural buffer provided along the roadway.
Finke replied that the houses themselves are some distance from Arrowhead Drive and there
is landscaping proposed, along with the stormwater pond.
Popp referenced the ten-foot retaining wall and acknowledged that a fence would be required.
He asked the threshold for height when a fence would not be required atop the retaining wall.
Finke replied that he believed four feet would be the threshold to not have a fence.
George Stickney, applicant, commented that he believes this is the ideal project for this piece
of land and the neighbors to the north and south. He stated that each of the 30 lots are
carefully placed, with 29 lots having marsh views and all of the lots having private vistas. He
stated that there are lot widths of 68 feet, 70 feet and above. He stated that the average lot
size of 12,106 square feet exceeds the minimum of the R-1 district. He stated that there will
be right-of-way for the future along with the planted vegetation. He commented that this will
be a premier villa development. He noted that Charles Cudd will be the builder and is excited
to create some fun and creative floorplan options. He stated that there will be differential in
product for the different lot sizes. He stated that he will landscape the future outlot and right-
of-way and if those areas are needed in the future, he can transplant those plantings/trees to a
different area of the site. He commented that he will have a beautiful entrance monument and
landscaped road. He stated that after the Council review of the concept plan, he added an
additional tree within each lot boundary which results in about 5.7 trees per lot. He stated
that he removed the park shown in the concept plan and made the three lots on block two
larger. He commented that building 25 two-story homes on the property would have a much
larger impact on the existing residential properties. He stated that upon walking the property
in a leaf off condition, he noticed poor quality vegetation and buckthorn. He explained that
he has met with all property owners on Bluebell that have abutting properties to the
development and has proposed a restoration and screening project for each of those properties
specific to the needs of each site.
Nielsen asked if the applicant has any issues with the conditions recommended by staff.
Rick Osberg, project engineer, commented that he noticed an item or two in the presentation
that were different from the staff report. He provided an example of 20 percent removal for
trees mentioned in the presentation, whereas the staff report stated 25 percent allowed
removal.
Finke replied that would only impact the required replacement and would not impact the
analysis. He noted that he would look into that but may not be able to provide that answer
tonight.
Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m.
7
Brian Lorentz, 4484 Bluebell Trail South, commented that he appreciates that the developer
has made himself available and has been meeting with the property owners. He stated that
his concern is that the development will block the wetlands from the residents of
Bridgewater. He wished that the homes were not so close together and this dense as it creates
a wall that blocks their views.
Nielsen commented that two-story homes could be built under R-1 zoning and asked if that
would be preferred.
Lorentz stated that he would have to see a sketch to know if it were better. He commented
that he feels that the home adjacent to his property is close to his backyard. He stated that if
the project moves forward as proposed, the screening will be important as mentioned by the
applicant. He stated that Stickney has provided each of the resident a draft agreement, which
he would like to see updated and signed along with the City approvals. He asked if that
agreement should be included in the City process so that it becomes part of the approval from
the City.
Nielsen asked if there would be a way to make those agreements part of the record with the
City.
Finke stated that he would suggest some detail be added to the development agreement, as
that could then be incorporated as an obligation and covered by a financial guarantee similar
to onsite improvements.
Stickney stated that he is honored to work with the neighbors to the north in order to ensure
they are happy with the project. He stated that he is going to provide those residents with a
contract and agreement. He noted that he is doing this as a favor and did not believe it
needed to be tied to the development approvals. He stated that these are agreements that will
be customized to the conditions of each adjacent property.
Nielsen stated that the landowners are wanting something that becomes memorialized with
the City but noted that could be worked out at a later time.
Finke acknowledged the comments received prior to the meeting that were provided to the
Commission and recognized the residents that sent in comments via email that will be
included in the record.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Sedabres commented that he believes this is a good balance for the site and appreciates the
thoughtfulness and engagement of the developer.
Rhem agreed with Sedabres.
Popp also agreed with the comments of Sedabres. He commented that there is a balance of
making things work on the site and working with adjacent residents. He stated that the
alternative would be traditional R-1 development which did not seem preferable for any of
the parties.
Piper commented that this is an excellent proposal and thanked Stickney for his concern.
8
Jacob commented that he likes the presentation and concurs with the comments made thus
far.
Grajczyk also agreed with the comments made thus far.
Nielsen stated that she also supports the comments made by the Commission. She stated that
this is a wonderful design for this piece of land. She understood the concerns of the
neighbors to the north and hoped that Stickney could work with those homeowners to assuage
their concerns.
Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and
PUD General Plan of Development subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
A roll call vote was performed:
Grajczyk aye
Jacob aye
Piper aye
Popp aye
Rhem aye
Sedabres aye
Nielsen aye
Motion carried.
Finke stated that the intent would be to present this to the Park Commission at its January 19th
meeting and to the City Council on February 1st.
Nielsen briefly recessed the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
Nielsen reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
8. Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Jeff and Chris Cates – Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to Change Future Land Use from Future Development Area to Business
and Staging to 2020 (PIDs 0411823110002, 0411823140004, and 0311823220004)
Finke presented a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Cates Industrial Park.
He identified the subject parcel and highlighted the surrounding property uses and future land
uses. He stated that the site is guided for Future Development Area (FDA) which signifies
that the property may be considered for urban development in future planning processes. He
explained that for the current planning period of through 2030, the property is not anticipated
for urban development. He stated that the applicant is proposing a business use within the
current staging period. He explained that the proposal would be for approximately 665,000
square feet of warehouse and light industrial uses with office. He stated that the concept plan
does not provide specific details for the development but is provided for context for this
Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that if the amendment is approved, additional
content would be provided during future applications for plat, site plan review, etc. He stated
that information on the Comprehensive Plan was included in the Commission packet. He
explained that the goals within the plan provide guidance as the City considers amendments
to the plan. He reviewed the goals most relevant to the question posed this evening. He
stated that staff provided a review of the available business property within Medina and are
open for development at this time. He noted that the supply of property for business
development has reduced since the City adopted its Comprehensive Plan. He noted that some
9
of the larger sites do not have development interest from the property owners. He also
reviewed the historical planning for this property going back to 2000. He provided details on
an agreement from 2000 with the previous landowner, noting that the City Attorney is
reviewing that with the City Council and the Commission should concentrate on the broader
land use question. He reviewed the details of the concept plan provided with the application.
He noted that another important consideration is related to infrastructure providing details on
transportation.
Piper asked if the warehouses would be served by large 18-wheeler trucks.
Finke commented that the majority of the traffic would be employees but there would also be
a fair amount of freight traffic.
Piper asked if Cates Ranch Drive would have to be able to handle that kind of vehicle weight.
Finke confirmed that the new internal street would be constructed to City standards in
connection with the development.
Piper asked if Willow Drive, in its current design, is capable of handling that traffic.
Finke replied that there would be improvements for Willow Drive as noted in the staff report
and summarized those improvements. He stated that many of those improvements would be
required absent the Comprehensive Plan amendment request as there is other business
property in the vicinity that could be developed.
Piper asked if this would necessitate a traffic light at Highway 55.
Finke replied that there already is a traffic light at that intersection.
Jacob asked if there is currently a turn lane from Highway 55 to Willow.
Finke replied that there are turn lanes from Highway 55 onto Willow and from Willow onto
Highway 55. He stated that as mentioned there would be capacity issues for the turn lane
from Willow onto eastbound Highway 55. He stated that while the fix would seem to be to
add an additional turn lane, there is only one lane for traffic on Highway 55.
Peter Coyle, land use lawyer representing the Cates family, commented that this is the first
step in the policy discussion to put this land into the business development status for
development. He noted that the Council has previously slated this land for the development
several times in the past 20 years and was only guided for FDA in the last rendition of the
Comprehensive Plan at the objection of the landowner. He stated that staff identified many
policy questions that will need to be worked out in time. He stated that the goal is to take
advantage of a site that is very well located, in an emerging business area, served by existing
utilities and is development ready in that sense. He stated that there are limited business
opportunities within Medina because of the development that has occurred, and the available
land designated. He stated that the traffic study completed as a part of the EAW identified
the improvements that would be necessary. He stated that the goal would be to develop the
site in phases from south to north in a four-to-six-year development horizon that would allow
them to adapt the traffic improvements. He noted that they would work with staff to ensure
those improvements are done correctly and properly. He stated that the property to the west
is commercial in nature while the property to the south is zoned for commercial. He stated
that Highway 55 is an important corridor and for all of those reasons they believe this is a
good location for new commercial activity to occur. He stated that the purpose tonight is to
10
seek support for the policy change that would allow them to continue to submit appropriate
applications.
Popp asked the type of businesses that would be envisioned for the development.
Coyle commented that the site plan is conceptual as they do not yet have commercial tenants
in hand that they could identify tonight. He stated that an industrial park/business park
concept has been provided that identifies different options. He stated that they would be
looking for clean industry, low impact businesses that would provide jobs.
Popp thanked the applicant for providing information on the types of jobs that could be
provided. He noted that he would also be interested in the number of jobs that could be
created but recognized that would be difficult at this stage in the process.
Nielsen opened the public hearing at 9:38 p.m.
No comments.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:39 p.m.
Popp commented that he is unsure he is on board with the layout and how the land would be
used. He stated that perhaps he would be more supportive of a business campus type or
business park style of development. He stated that could lead to more greenspace and office
uses versus an industrial park that would have high traffic and truck traffic and less jobs. He
stated that the development also may not be as attractive for the surrounding properties,
especially if the site did not stay occupied. He stated that if the City wants to look at
economic development, he would support holding off on this to attract a campus setting type
business. He commented that growth management is an important part of the Comprehensive
Plan and stated that he does not see a reason to change the zoning from FDA at this time. He
asked if the business goals of the community could still be met if this change were made and
whether this change would have a domino effect on other FDA properties.
Rhem stated that he visited the site today and believed that a business use would make sense
in this setting. He stated that the concerns that he has relate to transportation and the
potential impact that could have on the improvements that would be needed for surrounding
roads. He stated that he thinks business zoning makes sense given the business use of the
adjacent properties.
Sedabres commented that he recognizes that the property is slated for future development but
stated that he would be supportive of the change in zoning. He stated that this use makes
sense, and he would be supportive.
Grajczyk stated that in the past few years the Commission has mostly considered residential
development. He stated that the City is always looking to bring in more businesses as that
brings more people, revenue, and potential. He stated that other towns and cities have had a
lot of success with business parks that have brought in a range of businesses that make the
community more diverse. He stated that one of his concerns is related to traffic and wanted
to ensure that the City could keep up with the best practices.
Jacob echoed similar comments related to transportation and the infrastructure. He stated that
he would support moving forward and exploring this further.
11
Piper commented that she is concerned with infrastructure, transportation, and traffic. She
also believed that there has been a focus on residential planning and believed this would be
good for the Hamel corridor.
Nielsen stated that she struggles with this request and is hesitant to change the FDA
designation. She stated that there was a lot of time and input put into the Comprehensive
Plan process and therefore she is hesitant to change that without knowing how that area is
desired to develop. She understood the need for business development and acknowledged
that there is business development in that area.
Motion by Grajczyk, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment with the conditions.
A roll call vote was performed:
Grajczyk aye
Jacob aye
Piper nay
Popp nay
Rhem aye
Sedabres aye
Nielsen nay
Motion carried.
Finke stated that a presentation to the Council has not yet been scheduled and encouraged
residents to check back with City staff or on the City website for a date. He stated that staff
intends to present to the Park Commission at its next meeting.
9. Public Haring – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to
Maximum Building Height of Rooftop Elements and Mechanical Equipment, and
Screening Requirements for Rooftop Mechanical Equipment
Baumgardner provided background information on the previous discussions related to rooftop
elements. She noted that the discussions have been separated into the categories of
architectural features and rooftop equipment. She reviewed the initial recommendation from
staff and the additional items that the Commission and Council directed staff to continue to
research. She provided additional information on the concepts relating to a Conditional Use
Permit, religious use exceptions, limiting area of architectural features, limiting feature height
above roof, standards based on zoning district, and height of mechanical equipment. She
asked the Commission for assistance in clarifying the purpose of the regulation and whether
the recommendation meets the purpose of the regulation. She asked if a Conditional Use
Permit for architectural features would help to serve the purpose. She stated that if the
Commission believes that the recommendation meets the goals and purpose of the regulation,
a motion could be made to recommend adoption of the ordinance.
Nielsen opened the public hearing at 10:08 p.m.
No comments.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 10:08 p.m.
12
Piper commented that this ordinance is beautifully done and is pleased to see how specific the
language is on each use. She believed that this would answer many questions.
Sedabres referenced the previous proposal with the spires and asked if this ordinance would
allow for the spires that had been requested.
Finke replied that as drafted, the height of those spires as proposed would not be permitted by
these limitations. He stated that there was some discussion of the Council and staff in
reviewing the different architectural features throughout Medina and whether they would be
allowed under the proposed regulations. He noted that many of the features would just barely
be allowed. He stated that there was discussion on whether these regulations would have
unintended impact on design.
Sedabres asked if the ordinance as drafted includes reference to the CUP process.
Finke stated that as drafted there is not reference to a CUP to allow additional height. He
stated that if a CUP is going to be used to allow additional height, there would need to be
specific conditions.
Sedabres stated that he maintains his view in that he has concern with nonconforming
religious buildings that have features that would continue to be allowed as they would be
grandfathered in. He stated that he would like to see a tool that would ensure new religious
institutions are not treated differently than those that already exist.
Jacob asked if there is a provision to offer screening for mechanical equipment on rooftops.
He commented that there is a variety of different rooftop mechanical equipment and noted
that he would prefer that equipment to be screened to protect the rural character of Medina.
Baumgardner confirmed that the requirement for screening mechanical equipment continues
to be part of the ordinance.
Popp stated that he can support the consensus of the Council from the December 21st meeting
related to mechanical equipment. He stated that there are a wide range of applications that
could be impacted and therefore the purpose of the regulation is important. He stated that he
would like to push for the option of a CUP to provide additional flexibility. He stated that he
did not see the benefit of regulating the percent of the rooftop for architectural features.
Rhem commented that he would also want to see some form of flexibility and would be
interested in reviewing how that could be provided.
Finke commented that in terms of flexibility, a CUP could potentially provide that, but the
flip side would be that the City should be mindful of being careful what it may get. He stated
that by making additional height for architectural elements a conditional permitted use, it
would essentially become an allowed use, subject to the specific conditions. He asked what
standards would be used to limit that flexibility. He noted that dislike of a design could not
be used to deny a CUP request. He stated that the City has gone through this process to limit
the height of architectural elements and including a CUP option would essentially void that
limitation.
Grajczyk commented that he believes the intention is to avoid a situation where something is
constructed that may be in a neighborhood or zoned area that may not fit and causes
disturbance to residents. He stated that he likes the staff recommendation as that provides the
best opportunity to provide the vision for the community.
13
Nielsen recognized that there is concern for the temple and that some Commissioners would
like to allow the ability for spires. She asked if the numbers could be changed to better
support that request, suggesting adding five feet to each of the regulations.
Finke commented that the Commission could choose to make its own recommendation. He
stated that he would caution against calling out a specific request. He recognized that it is
also helpful to use real examples when considering the regulations. He stated that there is a
moratorium in place allowing the City to go through this process as a result of the BAPS
application. He stated that there was a lot of discussion at that time that there were no
regulations for rooftop elements in place. He stated that it was unanimous that there ought to
be some regulation to prevent overly sized elements, and the question then is to the level of
restriction. He stated that staff’s initial thought to tying the regulation to the allowed height
in the district was that a building could be that height, so an element could also be that height.
He noted that allowing ten feet above the highest point was tied to the examples that exist in
the community. He noted that the highest BAPS spire was 30 feet above the 20-foot roof
height, therefore it would need to be ten feet shorter in order to match the ordinance as
drafted.
Baumgardner confirmed that the Commission could change the numbers if desired.
Nielsen stated that she is comfortable with the regulation as drafted.
Motion by Piper, seconded by Grajczyk, to recommend approval of the ordinance as
presented by staff.
A roll call vote was performed:
Grajczyk aye
Jacob aye
Piper aye
Popp aye
Rhem aye
Sedabres nay
Nielsen aye
Motion carried.
10. Election of 2022 Planning Commission Officers
a. Chair
Piper nominated Nielsen for the position of Chair.
There were no other nominations.
A roll call vote was performed:
Grajczyk aye
Jacob aye
Piper aye
Popp aye
Rhem aye
14
Sedabres aye
Nielsen aye
Motion carried.
b. Vice Chair
Nielsen nominated Piper for the position of Vice Chair.
Piper asked if any other members would be interested in the position.
Rhem nominated himself for the position of Vice Chair.
A roll call vote was performed:
Grajczyk Rhem
Jacob Rhem
Piper Rhem
Popp Rhem
Rhem Rhem
Sedabres Rhem
Nielsen Rhem
Motion carried.
11. Approval of the December 14, 2021 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion by Piper, seconded by Jacob, to approve the December 14, 2021, Planning
Commission minutes with the noted changes.
A roll call vote was performed:
Grajczyk aye
Jacob aye
Piper aye
Popp aye
Rhem aye
Sedabres aye
Nielsen aye
Motion carried.
12. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
Bob Belzer, Wild Meadows resident, commented that he also submitted his comments via
email to the Commission. He stated that at the last meeting he provided comments and it was
noted that Nielsen would look into the issue.
Nielsen stated that the matter was referred to staff and it was noted that staff would respond
as necessary.
Belzer commented that in the PUD, he has discovered that in Wild Meadows there were two
amendments accepted that were not reported as required. He commented that those
15
amendments are major amendments and in order for those to be approved, they would have
had to go through the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that Minnesota
Land Trust has holder rights as does the City of Medina. He stated that if the Minnesota
Land Trust approves an amendment to the covenants and the City were not aware of that, he
would consider that a major issue.
Nielsen asked what Belzer is hoping the Commission could do.
Belzer commented on the problems that exist within the landscape of Wild Meadows, which
has rapidly degraded. He commented that in order to get that resolved, the holder would need
to take action against the HOA Board which is not doing its job.
Grajczyk commented that he does not believe there is anything the Commission can do in this
instance. He suggested that Belzer get a lawyer to take action against his HOA.
Belzer commented that he has two lawyers and has involved the Attorney General. He
commented that the City of Medina has holder rights and could remove the HOA Board
members.
Nielsen stated that even if the City has that power, it does not mean it needs to execute that
power.
Belzer commented that one year ago the HOA held an election, and Johnson asked the HOA
Board to provide a letter to the association and the President of the HOA Board did not
provide that letter.
Nielsen commented that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the Council
and there is no action that could be taken.
Belzer asked the Commission to launch an investigation.
Nielsen commented that the Commission does not have that authority.
13. Council Meeting Schedule
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Grajczyk
volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission.
14. Adjourn
Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to adjourn the meeting at 10:57 p.m.
A roll call vote was performed:
Grajczyk aye
Jacob aye
Piper aye
Popp aye
Rhem aye
Sedabres aye
Nielsen aye
Motion carried.
1
Dusty Finke
From:Robert Belzer <bob@rundigital.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:46 PM
To:Dusty Finke; Beth Nielsen
Cc:calcloud@gmail.com; mike@minnesotapersonalinjury.com; Tucker Isaacson; Oliver Larson; Petersen,
Thom (MDA); Tester, Peter (MPCA); Place, Whitney (MDA); 'Judy.Randall@state.mn.us';
ericabob@gmail.com; Robert Belzer; 'ken.powell@state.mn.us'; katrina.kessler@state.mn.us;
'Kevin.Anderson@hennepin.us'
Subject:Speaking Public Comment Section Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2022
Dusty,
Below are my comments to speak for tonight per Commissioner Neilson’s Request:
January 11th Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission meets the second Tuesday of each month; everyone is welcome to join. Due to COVID
protocol, meetings will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams until further notice:
Virtual Meeting Link: Click here to join the meeting
For telephone audio only: Dial 1‐612‐517‐3122; Enter Conference ID: 469 261 792#
Commissioner Beth Neilson can read and address each of the questions publicly and or I will ask these
questions and I will listen or read it and listen to her response.
Robert Belzer Wild Meadows Homeowners Association following up from the December Planning
Commission Meeting were you able to research and what did you discover the following:
Respectfully, where can we source City of Medina City Council and City Planning Commissioning Medina
Notes 2001-2008
We would like to know Medina City Code Violations 830. Zoning – PUD 1 & PUD 2
(i) Amendments -
(i) Major Amendments - Major amendments to an approved PUD Development Plan may be
approved by the City Council after review by the Planning Commission. The notification and
public hearing procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the
original PUD. A major amendment is any amendment which:
How the city of Medina deals with infractions after the fact since Wild Meadows HOA has
on record two unrecorded to amended Major Amendments
You can see the copies of the dated Major Amendment Changes to Wild Meadows Covenants
Section 1.1
1. Accepted 9-01-09 Jim Eckberg Ecologist
2
2. Accepted 2-16-12 Executive Director Kris Larson MN Land Trust
Additional Questions for City of Medina Planning Commissioner to Address:
1. Where do we Citizens find the draft copy changes to data request form August 17, 2021,
from October 6, 2015?
2. How do we Citizens gain access to city of Medina Email Communications between City
Medina Officials and MN Land Trust?
3. Does the City of Medina have a tracking of Easement Agreements and Conditions of Each
of them?
4. Where can we see the reporting of each of the ponds not located inside of Wild Meadows?
If City of Medina had Accountability in the January 4, 2022, meeting we need to find accountability
here in Wild Meadows Homeowners Association and the Amended Amendments. with the
above information
Amendment Prepared by:
Jim Eckberg – Ecologist
Minnesota Native Landscapes, Inc.
Date Submitted: 7/30/09
Submitted to: Minnesota Land Trust
Date Accepted: 9/01/09
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN:
ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF
LOWLAND FOREST/ HARDWOOD SWAMPS
AND FOREST EXPANSION-SAVANNA
A guiding principle of ecological restoration is adaptive management. Restoration
objectives adapt to new insight gained from managing and monitoring these dynamic
plant communities. In the original restoration plan for Wild Meadows Development in
Medina, MN there are several small areas that are to be managed as mesic or wet prairie.
After extensive observation of these areas and consideration of restoration management
logistics, it is the opinion of Minnesota Native Landscapes that the ecological targets of
these habitats be modified to Expansion Forest-Savanna (for mesic prairie) and hardwood
swamp/lowland forest (for wet prairie). In these areas (see maps) this report describes 1)
the current ecological status as it relates to the current ecological targets, 2) the proposed
new ecological targets for each location, 3) the proposed methodology for establishment
and long-term management of the new ecological targets, and 4) a strategy for
minimizing potential negative effects on storm water management in wetl
July 30, 2009
Kris Larson
Director of Conservation
Minnesota Land Trust
394 So. Lake Avenue, Suite 404A
Duluth, MN 55802
Dear Kris,
Please find the attached amendment to the original restoration plan. The amendment
proposes new ecological targets for three wet prairie and five mesic prairie areas. I
provide the information requested by the MLT on June 2, 2009 for formal amendment of
the original restoration plan. For the areas with new targets I describe 1) the current
ecological status, 2) the proposed new ecological targets, 3) the proposed methods for
establishment and long-term management of the new ecological targets, and 4) a strategy
for minimizing potential negative effects on storm water management in wetlands.
3
It is the opinion of Minnesota Native Landscapes that the proposed new targets will be
ecologically appropriate and provide an attainable ecological goal. Initial establishment
of the new plant communities will begin in fall 2009 and be completed by June 1, 2010. I
have reviewed the suggestions made by Paul Bockenstedt of Bonestroo. I appreciate his
assessment and I have included the recommendation that box elders be managed so that
they do not degrade the structure or function of forest expansion-savanna areas (page 10).
Please review and respond to our proposal on or before September 1, 2009.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jim Eckberg
Ecologist
Minnesota Native Landscapes
4
Thank you,
Wild Meadows HOA Lot Owner Member
Bob Belzer
“City of Medina Planning Commissioner Nielsen reported that the Commission met the previous week 2 and received
input from a Wild Meadows resident expressing concern over ponds degradation. She stated that the Commission did
not have the appropriate information and therefore was unable to provide input. This was stated in the City Council
Meeting notes posted on city of medina’s website. “
5