HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-10-2022 PC Minutes 1
CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday May 10, 2022
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, and Braden Rhem.
Absent: Planning Commissioner John Jacob, Ron Grajczyk, and Tim Sedabres
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke, Planning Intern Colette Baumgardner, and
City Planner Deb Dion
2. Changes to Agenda
No comments made.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings
Finke provided an update on items recently reviewed and acted on by the City Council.
Rhem asked for input on the Council discussion related to the townhome development
proposed for 342 Hamel Road.
Finke summarized the discussion noting that the Council found the density consistent with
the zoning and Uptown Hamel but had a lot of input related to architectural design.
4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Nielsen
volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission.
5. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update.
6. Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Jeff and Chris Cates – Concept
Plan Review for Development of Approximately 250,000-302,000 Sq. Ft. of
Warehouse/Office/Industrial on 31 Acres – 2575 Cates Ranch Drive (PID
0411823140004)
Finke presented a concept plan review for a proposed business development that would
require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that the Commission considered a
larger request of this nature for this site and the adjacent site earlier this year. He stated that
ultimately the City Council did not appear to favor the larger development of both parcels and
following that review, the applicant withdrew the larger plan and submitted the three options
within this concept plan review. He displayed the three concepts submitted by the applicant
which range from 250,000 to 300,000 square feet. He stated that staff provided input on each
of the concepts within the packet. He commented that staff believes that it would be
important to provide convenient access for truck traffic from Willow Drive, as that would be
2
the preferred route from Highway 55. He stated that additional landscaping was added as
well as additional greenspace along the streets. He referenced a shared drive or private road
in the outlot to the north of the subject site. He stated that the private drive is not part of the
concept plan, but it is currently under common ownership. He then highlighted the pros and
cons of each of the three concepts. He stated that the density of this concept has been
reduced from the previous review. He also reviewed the goals within the Comprehensive
Plan and land available for business development. He stated that the opportunity for larger
scale business development is currently limited and if there is interest in creating additional
opportunity for business development, staff believes this site would be well suited. He also
reviewed the designations of the property in previous versions of the Comprehensive Plan,
noting an urban commercial designation in 2000. He stated that with the previous submittal,
the applicant submitted the necessary information for the EAW, and it was determined that an
EIS would not be necessary. He noted that a traffic study was also done for the larger
proposal and reviewed the improvements that were proposed.
Piper stated that there is a light on Willow Drive and asked if this would add turn arrows for
left turns.
Finke confirmed that there could be a single left hand turn with slightly more time but noted
that MnDOT does not want to adjust the timing by much because the intention is to keep
traffic moving on Highway 55. He noted that there would be a desire to create more stacking
to ensure there are not impacts to other roadways at peak times. He noted that if Highway 55
is expanded to four lanes, Willow Drive could then be expanded to have two left turn lanes.
He stated that this proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and asked that
the Commission provide input on the question of land use within the context of the concepts
provided.
Nielsen invited the applicant to speak.
Peter Coyle, land use counsel for the Cates family, stated that they received a lot of feedback
at the City Council and even though it was not the direction they wanted to go, it was
constructive, and they have made adjustments. He commented that they have scaled the
project back and limited development to the 30-acre parcel. He noted that the reduced scale
of the project would limit the related impacts of the project but still provide an opportunity
for business campus development. He stated they committed to the Council at the last
meeting that if there were traffic impacts to Willow, the improvements would be at the
expense of the developer. He stated that they provided three concepts and welcomed input
from the Commission on which they would favor. He recognized that the plans would
change once there are tenants and/or buyers involved.
Popp referenced the intended use of perhaps a campus or corporate use. He noted that the
initial proposal included a fair amount of industrial/warehouse versus a corporate park and
asked if that vision has changed.
Coyle stated that vision has not changed as there is not a buyer or tenant in hand. He stated
that they are attempting to show that this could be a distribution facility, but if a corporate
buyer came with a plan for something of that nature, they would accommodate for that if it
also fit within the business designation.
Nielsen asked if this were approved and developed, would the applicant then come back for a
request on the northern parcel.
3
Coyle stated that he could not answer that. He noted that they heard loud and clear from the
Council that it does not support that at this time, and they made the adjustments to their plan.
Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
No comments.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Piper stated that on a general concept basis, if all required elements are completed, she could
support any of the three concepts. She stated that she could support the land use change.
Rhem stated that he would also be comfortable with the land use change as there are similar
land uses within the area.
Popp stated that he is more comfortable with this reduced scale. He stated that previously he
raised concerns about the use type. He stated that he prefers more of a business park over
industrial/warehouse because of the truck traffic. He also noted a preference for more job
creation. He acknowledged that it would be hard to say if this would be attractive to residents
because it is early in the process.
Nielsen stated that she struggles with this. She agreed that in looking at a map, business
could work, but would be hesitant to change the land use provided by the Steering Committee
that developed the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she likes the smaller scale of this
development, and it would fit with the business in the area. She commented that she prefers
the access off Willow rather than Chippewa.
Rhem stated that he prefers the concept that hugs tighter to the commercial property, concept
three. He agreed that access to Willow Drive is key.
Popp stated that he likes concept two as it provides screening to the north. He also
recognized that is the smallest footprint of the three options. He stated that while he does not
have concern with the other concepts, he does prefer concept two.
Nielsen agreed that she also prefers concept two with the screening and greenspace. She
noted that modulation would be a must if the one wall building is chosen.
Finke stated that staff intends to present this to the Council at its meeting the following week
to obtain feedback.
7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Pertaining to
Provisions for Electrical Vehicle Charging
Baumgardner presented the proposed ordinance amendment related to electric vehicle
charging units. She stated that this was discussed at the April meeting and there was broad
support and input from the Commission. She noted that the Council provided similar input
and was less open to the idea of a requirement but instead wanted to focus on incentives. She
reviewed the different levels of charging stations, noting that level two provides the most
flexibility as it allows faster charging without much investment. She reviewed the different
levels of charger readiness for development and stated that the recommendation would be
divided between residential and commercial. She reviewed the specific recommendations for
both residential and commercial development. She noted a higher recommendation for
hotels, schools, and auto service stations. She noted that these standards would be
4
recommended within the ordinance in return for incentives rather than becoming
requirements. She reviewed the proposed incentives and compared those to the current
standards for development.
Piper used the example of a school with teachers parking for the day that may wish to charge
the vehicle. She asked if that would be required for schools. She commented that she sees
that infrastructure as crucial for the future as people will need to charge their vehicles in those
types of situations.
Baumgardner stated that the City cannot have a requirement to install EV charging because
the local code would then be stricter than the State building code. She stated that a
requirement could be tied to a parking lot. She stated that following the last discussion with
the Commission and Council, staff took the direction of developing recommendations rather
than requirements.
Finke added that a requirement would likely have the best return in a residential setting
because that is where most charging occurs. However, a requirement in residential
construction would need to be tied to construction of the building which is not an option. A
requirement connected to parking lot construction would likely be less effective.
Popp commented that eventually he believes this will be a requirement and therefore does not
want to give up too many things as incentives. He asked and received confirmation that there
would not be a set end date for the incentives within the ordinance. It was noted that should
these become requirements by the State, the City could amend the ordinance.
Rhem asked for more details on the phasing plan flexibility points.
Finke provided additional details on the phasing plan point system.
Nielsen asked if a developer could choose all of the incentives or one incentive.
Baumgardner commented that as written a developer could choose all of the incentives. She
stated that if a developer built to the recommendation, they would be able to select all the
incentives.
Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
No comments.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:18 p.m.
Nielsen commented that she did not love the idea of allowing a developer to select all the
incentives. She noted that the first few incentives seem to go against the desires for Medina
as it would allow less trees and greenspace.
Popp noted similar comments. He stated that the incentive he has the most issue with is the
tree reduction as that seems to go against the desires for development in Medina. He
suggested removing that incentive.
Baumgardner stated that she thinks developers would take the most interest in the tree
reduction as that would provide the largest reduction in cost. She stated that the other
incentives would be considered lighter, not that they would not be effective, but they are
smaller in scale.
5
Piper noted that if there is not interest in the incentives, the tree reduction could be added
back in at a later time. She commented that a lot of housing development has been approved
in the last year. She stated that until they start using this ordinance, it would be hard to tell
what will work in attracting interest and what does not.
Finke described how the tree replacement requirement functions for most current
developments. Typically, developed sites do not have enough space to replant all the trees on
site, so developers contribute to the tree replacement fund in lieu of some of the planting.
However, the City also is not able to find locations to plant trees, so this fund is used more as
a tree management fund.
Nielsen stated that perhaps if the incentives are broken into categories a developer could
choose one incentive from category A or two incentives from category B.
Popp stated that at some point the State will require EV charging and therefore he does not
want to place too much incentive on this.
Rhem stated that he feels very comfortable with all the incentives but does have hesitation
towards the trees as well.
Finke proposed having category A be the tree replacement incentive and category B all the
other incentives listed.
Popp commented that he likes the idea of parsing the incentives out. He expressed concern
with decreasing funds towards tree planting.
Rhem suggested removing the tree incentive as that seems to be where the concern lies.
Motion by Rhem, seconded by Popp, to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment
to Chapter 8 of the City Code pertaining to provisions for electrical vehicle charging
removing the tree replacement incentive. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Jacob,
Grajczyk, and Sedabres)
8. Approval of the April 12, 2022 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion by Piper, seconded by Rhem, to approve the April 12, 2022, Planning Commission
minutes with the noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Jacob, Grajczyk, and
Sedabres)
9. Adjourn
Motion by Piper, seconded by Rhem, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.