Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-12-2022 PC Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday April 12, 2022 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nielsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Ron Grajczyk, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper (arrived at 7:42 p.m.), Justin Popp, Braden Rhem and Timothy Sedabres. Absent: Planning Commissioner John Jacob. Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke, City Planner Deb Dion, Planning Consultant Nate Sparks, and Planning Intern Colette Baumgardner 2. Changes to Agenda No changes proposed. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings Reid reported on recent discussions and actions of the City Council. 4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Sedabres volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 5. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. 6. Public Hearing – Hamel Townhome LLC – 342 Hamel Road – Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for Development of 30 Townhomes (PIDs 1211823420015 and 1211823420016) Sparks presented a request for a Preliminary Plat and Site Plan review for the development of 30 townhomes at 342 Hamel Road. He noted that the subject site is two parcels that total about 2.1 acres in size and within the Uptown Hamel zoning district. He reviewed the adjacent property uses. He stated that the Commission did review a Concept Plan for this at its November meeting. He stated that there would be a mix of three- and four-bedroom units. He stated that the property would be platted with each townhome having its own unit to convey to individual property owners while the drive aisles and perimeter would remain in an outlot to be owned by the HOA. He stated that the property density does fall within the permitting range for the zoning district. He provided additional details on the proposed architectural elements, proposed parking, and drive aisle width and length. He noted a potential connection that could be made to the east but most likely would not work because of the grade change between properties. He reviewed details related to stormwater management, retaining walls, and fencing along with additional comments related to those items. He reviewed the other comments within the staff report related to the proposed 2 application. He provided additional details on the tree removal, landscaping plan, and offsite planting that would be required. Sedabres referenced the material proposed for the front which is described as lap siding and asked for additional clarification. Sparks replied that a fiber cement lap siding would be proposed with a wood appearance. Sedabres asked if the front porch would overhang the sidewalk. Sparks replied that the overhang would end at the edge of the property line before the sidewalk starts. Popp asked if the dimensions of the porches facing Hamel Road were provided. Sparks replied that the porches protrude about three to four feet towards the road. Popp stated that he was attempting to determine if the porch would be functional or more of a façade. He asked if there have been any renderings that would show the landscaping from Hamel Road. Sparks replied that there is a landscaping plan included in the plans, although it was not included in his presentation. He stated that trees would be provided around the perimeter of the site and then between the driveways there would be additional plantings. He stated that the landscaping plan generally meets the requirements of the City. Popp asked if a lighting plan has been submitted. Sparks replied that has not yet been submitted. Rhem stated that it appears there is connectivity to the Rainwater Park and asked for more details. Sparks commented on the north side of the property there would be a stairway that goes down into the nature area. He stated that the front sidewalk would also connect to the bituminous trail in the Rainwater Nature Area. Matthew Eller, representing the applicant, stated that they listened to the input received from the Concept Plan review and incorporated those changes into their submittal. He believed that this will be a great asset to Hamel, and they look forward to moving forward in the process. Nielsen stated that there were a number of conditions recommended by staff and asked if the applicant has any concerns with those conditions. Eller commented that the conditions are reasonable and that they can comply with those conditions. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Finke commented that a letter was received that he forwarded to the members of the Commission on which a number of property owners signed and asked for the letter to be read in its entirety. He read the letter which was also submitted as a part of the record. 3 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Grajczyk thanked those that are looking to invest in the community and assist in the growth of Uptown Hamel. He commented that there are similar properties developed with townhomes in Hamel that are similar in design or idea. He stated that he does like the design and idea but feels that this proposal is too crowded given the nature of the area and residents that live in adjacent areas. He acknowledged that the zoning would allow this density range but believed 30 units to be too many. He stated that there could also be a challenge to get safety equipment into the site with this design if there were an emergency situation. He stated that a lack of greenspace in the front of the project area also stands out as something different from other properties. He stated that he would like to see something more spread out and open. Popp appreciated the letter from the residents. He stated that he does not share some of the concerns within that letter, such as density. He noted that this falls within the allowed range of density and in order to meet the projections of the Metropolitan Council, the City will need density in some areas. He stated that he does have concern with circulation, architectural design, and street appeal. He stated that the lack of plaza and/or greenspace is concerning. He was unsure that the renderings do enough to make that street appeal inviting to residents of the community. He was also concerned with lack of connectivity to the neighboring property. He stated that the isolation of this design and lack of connectivity is a concern. Piper commented that this proposal feels too crowded. She asked if this is similar to the development at 500 Hamel Road and whether this development would allow for children. Eller commented that the intent is to sell the units for purchase and there is no restriction for children. Piper commented that this would make her lean further towards this being too crowded as there would be no place for children to exercise other than driveways. She was also concerned with circulation. Rhem stated that he struggles with this request as the requirements are pretty much met which makes the review subjective. He agreed there are similarities to the townhome development down the road. He stated that he does like the connectivity to the Rainwater Park. He noted that although he had concerns with circulation, those appear to be addressed through the staff recommendations. He stated that the other challenge would be related to the architecture facing Hamel Road, which could be improved to ensure it does not look like the back of a building. Sedabres asked if this proposal would extend the width of Hamel Road to match existing properties or leave in place the existing width of Hamel Road. Eller commented that they would leave the width of Hamel Road as it is now. Sedabres commented that although some of the Uptown Hamel criteria are met, this is not what he pictures for Uptown Hamel. He noted that this is a unique area with only so many lots available and this should look more welcoming and walkable. He stated that this is too much asphalt and lack of greenspace. He stated that this is not the level of aesthetic and look he would have for Uptown Hamel. Nielsen asked why the change was made from rental to ownership. 4 Eller commented that there is a housing shortage and there are a lot of people interesting in owning at a good price and this project would lend itself towards that. Nielsen stated that she shares the concerns of the other members noting that this feels too dense. She noted that she would prefer to see this as rental as there is a need in the area. She agreed that greenspace is lacking. She stated that she could support the density if the visual from Hamel Road were improved. Eller commented that from a development standpoint, they reviewed the criteria the City has in place and then attempted to comply with the comments received from the Concept Plan review. He stated that in terms of circulation, they design to the specifications provided by the Fire Marshal and noted that their plan would comply with those specifications. He stated that this property could support up to 32 units and they have requested 30 units which is within the range. He stated that it is difficult when they design to the Code but then receive the comment that it is still not enough. He believed that this is a great site, and the development would be a benefit to Hamel. He stated that there is a lot of open space to the west and a 37-acre park across the street where kids would play. Nielsen stated that there were several concerns with the visual design of the units facing Hamel Road. Eller stated that is something they could look at and present something that fits more with the desired aesthetic. He stated that in the overall design and the picture shown in the concept image, he believes that it is a nice-looking unit that would be inviting. He recognized that the two-dimensional sketch was very sterile in its appearance. Nielsen asked about the blank wall. Eller replied that windows would be added to that side wall. He stated that they could also work on the aesthetics of the Hamel Road facing units, as he wants the community to be proud of the development. Sedabres stated that there was a reference of a Councilmember in a previous review which referenced a development in another community that had varying heights and materials that break up the wall appearance and give it more interest. Motion by Rhem to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and Site Plan review for the development of 30 townhomes at 342 Hamel Road subject to the conditions recommended by staff and additional modulation against Hamel Road. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion by Grajczyk, seconded by Piper, to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat and Site Plan review for the development of 30 townhomes at 342 Hamel Road. A roll call vote was performed: Grajczyk aye Popp aye Piper aye Rhem nay Sedabres aye Nielsen aye Motion carried. 5 7. Public Hearing – Jeffrey Bonner – 2055 Tamarack Drive – Variance from Required 150-Foot Setback to Replace Existing Barn with Larger Structure Dion presented a request from Jeffrey Bonner for a variance of 150 feet from the setback to the north property line. She stated that there is an existing barn which received a setback variance in 1978. She noted that all surrounding properties are zoned RR, and all animal structures require a setback of 150 feet from the property line. She stated that the property owner currently has three horses and provided details on the layout and features that would be included in the proposed barn, also comparing that to the layout and features of the existing barn. She noted that part of the expansion would include space to store vehicles and a boat. She stated that the proposed barn would be about 110 feet from the northern property line. She stated that the existing barn is deteriorating because of drainage issues on the property that has caused flooding in the barn. She noted that part of the process would include raising the elevation of the barn site to improve drainage. Piper asked for clarification on the property location. Dion clarified the location, noting it is on the north side of CR 24. Jeffrey Bonner, applicant, stated that he is present to answer any questions. He thanked the Commission, planning staff, and Finke and Dion for their assistance and consideration. He stated that they look forward to working with the City to ensure they work in harmony with the intent of the rural residential area and improve their property. Nielsen asked if the applicant is aware of any objections from neighbors. Bonner replied that they did provide verbal and written notice to the neighbors, and he did not receive any objections. Dion stated that she received a number of calls as a result of the land use application sign on the property. She stated that she answered the questions of the callers, and no objections were expressed. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. No comments. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Piper commented that this is good use of land and understands the desire to improve the barn. Nielsen stated that her only concern would be related to runoff from the increased elevation and footprint but believed that was addressed within the conditions recommended by staff. Motion by Piper, seconded by Popp, to recommend approval of the variance request from the required 150-foot setback to replace existing barn with larger structure for the property located at 2055 Tamarack Drive with attention to drainage/runoff. 6 A roll call vote was performed: Grajczyk aye Popp aye Piper aye Rhem aye Sedabres aye Nielsen aye Motion carries unanimously. 8. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Pertaining to Provisions for Electrical Vehicle Charging Baumgardner stated that tonight they will be discussing a potential electrical vehicle charging ordinance, noting that tonight is meant to be a discussion and a vote is not necessary. She provided background information and information on the different levels of charging and EV charging standards. She reviewed different regulatory methods and related success in implementation. She stated that staff recommends that a percentage of spaces be allocated during construction and to also have a permitted use to allow EV charging in all zoning districts. Piper commented that she feels uninformed for this discussion as she has not had an electric vehicle. She asked if patrons are charged to use charging stations found at gas stations. Baumgardner stated that if the charging is provided at a service station, users are charged using their credit card. Piper asked how units in parking lots charge. Baumgardner commented that the cost varies from facility to facility. She noted that some locations offer charging at no cost as an amenity, while others require payment for that service. Popp asked if the difference between EV ready and EV capable for new construction ranges in cost by about $1,000. Baumgardner commented that would be a reasonably accurate estimate. She stated that cost would vary on the type of readiness; for example, whether they were preparing for level one, level two, or level three charging. Grajczyk asked if there were potential grants, subsidies, or other funds available for charging stations. Baumgardner commented that there are programs some cities have opted into, using the example of a company leasing space from a city to install and maintain an EV charging station. She noted that is more of a public/private partnership. She stated that she was not aware of grants, but perhaps that may come forward in the future. Sedabres referenced the comparable city analysis and asked the view of staff on residential construction. 7 Baumgardner stated that it would be fitting in both residential and commercial development. She noted that the chart was broken down between single-family, multi-family, and commercial development and provided a brief overview. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. No comments. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. Sedabres stated that he loves this and is in favor of this. He stated that he could support recommending as that sets the tone that Medina cares about sustainability and planning for the future but would also support requiring EV capable in all single-family to ensure infrastructure is in place. He stated that it appears that based on the year of adoption, the number of EV stalls required increases for multi-family or commercial. He commented that the cost is so marginal for single-family EV capable and EV ready or capable in commercial of multi-family that he would support that to ensure infrastructure is in place but at minimum would recommend those things. Rhem echoed the comments of the previous speaker. He referenced the study which mentions 20 percent of spaces recommended. He asked why the City would not consider including method five as well, which would allow parking reductions for EV ready developments. Baumgardner stated that she does not have too much information on either side of that to determine how useful that would be for Medina. Finke commented that there is a rationale for the parking minimums and therefore would not want to see a reduction in that to provide an EV charging station. He did not believe those two things serve the same interest. He stated that if the Commission wanted to encourage EV ready stalls, other incentives could be considered which could provide flexibility to other zoning standards. Rhem stated that he would want to go above recommending, using incentives to encourage developers. Piper asked how this would fit in a townhome development and whether it would be recommended or required within those garages. Baumgardner commented that given the current contrast between the City building standards and State building code, she did not believe the City could require that as it would be more restrictive than the State building code. She stated that it could be a recommendation and a requirement could be made for parking lots. Sedabres asked if Richfield would be challenged for its requirement. Baumgardner confirmed that she would expect that requirement would be challenged. Popp commented that there is an appetite for this type of discussion and thanked staff for bringing it forward. He stated that he supports the comments of Sedabres. He stated that he would support method one if it were not going to be challenged by the State. He stated that he would also support incentivizing an EV ready space for level two charging. 8 Grajczyk stated that he recently purchased a vehicle and reviewed electric vehicles but did not choose one. He stated that if he purchased an electric vehicle, he would want to be able to charge it at his home and therefore wondered who would use the higher-level charging stations. He agreed that the stations will be needed as more electric vehicles are added to the roads. He was unsure that Medina had a parking issue where an incentive related to the number of parking stalls would be desired. He appreciated the desire for people to be ready and ahead of the curve, but from his construction experience it does not work well to place conduit that may or may not be used in ten years. He stated that he tends to move at a slower pace and is more concerned with infrastructure and appropriate locations for charging stations. He stated that he would personally prefer to leave that to businesses and other groups to plan ahead. He stated that affordability is also a consideration as the average electric vehicle is $64,000 compared to the average gas-powered vehicle which is around $40,000. He recognized that may not be a factor for Medina as there is a higher household income level. He stated that he supports the staff recommendations for methods two and four. He noted that in the near future the State will update its building codes and the City could follow at that time. Nielsen was happy that Medina is starting to look at this as there will be a need. She supported the recommendation of staff and also supported looking at incentives, although not linked to the number of parking stalls. Baumgardner commented that staff will be discussing this with the Council at its work session the next week and then it could come back to the Commission as early as May or June to consider potential ordinance language. 9. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Pertaining to Signs within City-Owned Property Finke stated that this arose because of a donation from the Hamel Lions in partnership with Hamel Athletic Club (HAC) and Hamel baseball to install a dynamic display scoreboard in Hamel Legion Park. He stated that in the past the City has not reviewed scoreboards or internal advertising signs internal to the park for compliance with the sign ordinance. He stated that because of the size of the dynamic display the City Attorney suggested a more explicit exemption within the Code. He stated that it would seem to make sense that the same regulations would not be placed upon scoreboards and signs internal to the park, therefore staff suggests an exemption on those signs installed on City owned properties internal to a park. He noted that if the City is the owner of the property, there would still be review. He stated that in the future there could be review criteria developed for non-City owned property exemptions, such as school district properties. Sedabres asked the location of the scoreboard within Hamel Park and which direction the sign would face. Finke replied that this would replace the scoreboard on the Paul Fortin field which is north of the parking lot coming from Brockton Lane. He stated that it is not intended to be viewed from external of the site. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:59 p.m. No comments. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:59 p.m. 9 Popp stated that this is a practical approach and would still allow for review and approval. Piper commented that she also feels comfortable with that process. Sedabres commented that he understands the use of commercial versus park is different but wanted to ensure that size and lighting would still be considered given the amount of discussion that the City has placed on those issues for commercial signs. He stated that it would seem that if the City does not like signs of a certain size, one could argue that should apply across the board as it could seem that commercial businesses are being held to a different standard than nonprofit organizations. Finke provided details on the size of the dynamic display proposed for the scoreboard, noting that it is large as it is intended to be seen from across a baseball field. Sedabres asked if there are specific requirements for hours or use or days of use. Finke stated that the display would be owned by the City in a City park and therefore could regulate those elements. Piper asked if the donors requested a specific size of the sign and whether that was conditional of their purchase of the sign. Finke replied that if the sign limitations were placed on the scoreboard, it would likely not move forward as it would not be visible for the intended purpose. Sedabres asked for more clarification on the location of the sign. Finke identified the location for the scoreboard. Nielsen asked how much bigger this scoreboard would be compared to the existing scoreboard. Finke provided the size of the proposed scoreboard and showed an image of the existing scoreboard, although he did not have those dimensions. Nielsen asked if there have been complaints related to the existing sign. Finke stated that he could not answer that question. He acknowledged that there is an interplay between recreational use of a park and adjacent residential properties but was unsure if there have been complaints related to the scoreboard itself. Motion by Grajczyk, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of ordinance amendment regulations pertaining to signs within City-owned parks and other City-owned property. A roll call vote was performed: Grajczyk aye Popp aye Piper aye Rhem aye Sedabres nay Nielsen aye Motion carries. 10 10. Land Sale – Portion of PID 02-118-23-24-0002 Finke stated that before the purchase or sale of property, the Commission must review the request to determine if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that in this case the City is proposing to sell a 30-foot strip of property within the Marsh Pointe plat. He stated that the City acquired the property through tax forfeiture as the owner of the adjacent property. He noted that the City Council believes it would be appropriate to sell the property to reimburse the cost of the original purchase. Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to direct the Chair to report to the City Council that the Planning Commission finds the sale of the 30-foot-wide strip of PID 02-118-23-24-0002 to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A roll call vote was performed: Grajczyk aye Popp aye Piper aye Rhem aye Sedabres aye Nielsen aye Motion carries unanimously. 11. Approval of the March 8, 2022 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Piper, seconded by Grajczyk, to approve the March 8, 2022, Planning Commission minutes with the noted corrections. A roll call vote was performed: Grajczyk aye Popp abstain Piper aye Rhem aye Sedabres aye Nielsen aye Motion carries unanimously. 12. Adjourn Motion by Piper, seconded by Rhem, to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 p.m. A roll call vote was performed: Grajczyk aye Popp aye Piper aye Rhem aye Sedabres aye Nielsen aye Motion carries unanimously.