Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-10-2022 PC Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 10, 2022 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nielsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Ron Grajczyk, John Jacob, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper, Justin Popp, Braden Rhem and Timothy Sedabres. Absent: None. Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke and Associate Planner Deb Dion 2. Changes to Agenda No comments made. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings Finke provided a brief update on recent Council actions. He noted that the Council will be holding a budget open house meeting prior to the regular meeting on September 6th. 4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Rhem volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 5. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. 6. Public Hearing – Medina Apartments LLC – 500 Hamel Road – Concept Plan for Construction of a 97-Unit Apartment Building (PID 1211823310048) Finke presented a concept plan for a 97-unit apartment building proposed to be located at 500 Hamel Road. He stated that the subject site is about 7 acres in size, with a net acreage of just under five acres when the wetlands are removed. He reported a net density of 19.8 units per acre. He reviewed the surrounding uses and stated that the subject site is zoned and guided as Uptown Hamel and contemplates a mix of residential and commercial uses with a density range of four to 20 units per acres. He noted that underground parking would be required to support more than 15 units per acre. He stated that this is an opportunity to provide feedback to the developer prior to submission of formal application. He stated that the proposed building would front Hamel Road and would be four stories, with the bottom story to be underground parking. He noted that there would be additional parking proposed north of the building. He stated that this site has utilities running in the front of the site near the road and therefore the building would be proposed to be setback from the road by 30 feet in order to not interfere with those utilities. He reviewed details of the rendering provided by the applicant as well as the proposed access and trail. He noted that if this moves forward, staff would recommend onsite recreation improvements because of the distance to a regional park. 2 He noted that this project would utilize private sewer and water services. He commented that this site was previously considered for a villa project and the debris on site was discussed in depth. He noted that this project would need to follow the similar process identified for debris removal. He stated that the applicant would propose permitted architectural materials and provided additional details on the architectural details proposed. He commented that there are relatively few sites that have been designated for higher density development and this is one of them. Piper asked if this is the same property that was reviewed the previous year for a similar development. Finke stated that the City granted preliminary plat approval for a 17-unit villa development on this site. Rhem asked if the first-floor elevations would be above grade. Finke provided additional details on the grade. Rhem asked for more clarification on the third-floor setback. Finke replied that the zoning district requires a third story to be setback from the other two stories. Grajczyk asked for details on the infrastructure. Finke replied that the developer would install the infrastructure necessary. He noted that this use would not require a sewer or watermain extension, whereas the previous concept for this property would have had a looper watermain. Popp asked if there were any standout concerns related to traffic from WSB. Finke replied that WSB suggested a right turn lane into the site. Mark Buchholz, applicant, stated that they are willing to work together to achieve a common goal in a respectful manner. He provided background information on their company which began 30 years ago. He commented that their narrative provides information about the project. He stated that this development would provide vibrancy to the area and fulfill a demand for high density housing in the community. He stated that they felt that this would be the highest and best use for the site given the proximity to Highway 55 and the location off Hamel Road which is a collector roadway. He noted that this would provide a transition from industrial, to medium density and low-density housing. He stated that they hold Uptown Hamel in high regard and therefore want to bring a good project to that area. He provided details on previous projects they have completed, even on highly contaminated sites. Popp asked what the approximate sale price was for the units. Buchholz replied that these would be luxury apartment rentals. He recognized that there can be a stigma towards rental units, but these would be luxury and their company would continue to manage the property. He stated that apartment living is not just for those that cannot afford something else, as there are people that desire that type of living. He stated that this provides an opportunity for people that do not want to maintain yards and property but still want to stay in the community. He stated that the average rent would be about $2,000 per unit and would range from $1,500 to above $2,000. 3 Popp stated that development opportunities have come forward on this parcel in the past and the contamination has been a big discussion item. He asked for details on the plan to mitigate that. Buchholz stated that when they look to purchase a property, they complete due diligence on the site. He stated that they also have experience in contaminated sites, therefore they do not have concerns in properly managing that material. Jacob asked for details on the clean up process for the site, how long that would take and where the materials would be disposed of. Mark Kiefer, environmental consultant, stated that construction material has been buried on this site and common contaminates have been created as a result. He stated that this type of contamination is not mobile. He stated that they did complete soil samples. He stated that he helped to draft the response action plan for the previous development proposal for this site and that would be updated and submitted to the MPCA by September 1st. He stated that this firm would have people onsite during the construction process and removal of materials. He stated that putting a building on top of this site would probably be the best solution as rainwater is just infiltrating on the site currently. He provided details on the removal and construction process noting that full excavation of the material would not be required. He stated that they would remove the materials necessary to make the site safe and support construction. He stated that there would be an environmental covenant for the site that would remain with the property. Piper asked where the contamination is located on the site. Kiefer replied that it is primarily located where the parking lot would be. Piper commented that there are 121 parking spaces proposed and asked how many of those would be located underground. Buchholz replied that there would generally be a one-to-one ratio of units to underground parking stalls. He stated that their proposal exceeds the number of parking spaces required as well. Jacob asked if on street parking would also be a part of this project. Finke stated that although street parking is encouraged in Uptown Hamel, this proposal would not include on street parking. He noted that staff would most likely continue discussions about the possibility of including on street parking. Piper asked if there would be elevators in the building. Buchholz replied that there would be one elevator in the building. Piper commented that there would be children living in the building and asked where they would play. Buchholz stated that they are committed to providing as much green space as possible and noted the greenspace to the east as well as the proximity to Hamel Park. He stated that they are open to discussing additional recreational opportunities. 4 Nielsen asked if the applicant is in agreement with the conditions and input within the staff report. Buchholz confirmed that they do agree with the majority of those comments. He stated that they believe the current design meets the design criteria related to the third story setback. Nielsen asked if the developer is considering any allocation of affordable housing units. Buchholz replied that they are not as they would be marketing these units as luxury apartments. Nielsen asked if the applicant has considered a more integrated design with the property to the east. Buchholz replied that they would be open to that but have not yet had conversations with the property to the east but are open to those conversations. Rhem referenced the recommendation from Hamel Fire for a second access and asked if that has been considered. Buchholz stated that he interpreted that comment to be either to have a second access or demonstrate that a fire truck could loop through. He noted that they were planning to demonstrate that the vehicle could loop through. Grajczyk asked if the site would be built up through grading. Buchholz stated that there are some restrictions related to water levels that dictate the lowest floor, which would be the underground parking. He stated that while he would like to keep that low, they also have to meet the requirements of the watershed district. He stated that their plan would be to bring fill in. Todd Olin commented that he was also involved in the previous application. He stated that the lowest level elevation was defined for the site based on the stormwater basin and wetland which provided data on the lowest floor elevation. He stated that they can meet those regulations, which require that the building be lifted up a bit but that can be softened visually while ensuring there is not a water problem. Sedabres stated that there is a wide range in the density for this property and asked how it was determined that the right fit for this site would be 97 units. Buchholz replied that there is a lot of land that they would not be disturbing as there are over six acres on this property. He stated that they feel that this density would be appropriate and would bring families and individuals to the area that would support the local businesses and could draw in additional desired commercial development in Uptown Hamel. Sedabres asked if the applicant owns the property and whether they are the sole entity involved in the LLC. Buchholz replied that his firm does own the property. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. 5 Finke acknowledged the 15 comments received prior to the meeting that will become a part of the public record. Fred Stetler, previous developer for this site, commented that he did his darndest to make his project work with the challenges on the site. He noted the contaminates, soil corrections, and improper location for the regional ponding basin. He stated that those challenges ate up the profit margin and there was no contingency left, therefore the project could not move forward. He commented that the contamination is a result of the buried building not a toxic dump. He stated that this building would be positioned in a way that mostly does not disrupt that buried debris therefore very little material would have to be removed from the site. He stated that this would be luxury apartments and would be a beautiful building. Deb Connoly, 3411 Elm Creek Drive, stated that the vision for Uptown Hamel is to be distinctive with greenspace and plazas. She stated that integrated and coordinated design is also mentioned. She did not believe that this property would meet any of those goals as the building would be out of scale compared to other properties and the design is quite common. She stated that she was also concerned with density and traffic increases. She stated that a widening of Hamel Road is mentioned and asked how that would impact the current residents and who would be responsible for that cost. She believed that this project only benefits the developer and Met Council. She asked if a luxury apartment dweller would want to live between a railroad track and an industrial building. Nielsen asked what the resident would like to see on the site. Connoly replied that she would be fine with housing but perhaps half the scale. She stated that she would also be fine with a warehouse. She stated that with outside parking there would need to be lighting at all hours of the night which would also be a concern. Nielsen asked that all speakers not only provide their comments, but also comment on what they would like to see on the site if they do not support this concept. Frank Mignon, 3360 Red Fox Drive, expressed concern with the name of the company and its limited liability status. He asked the gross size of the building. He stated that if the developer cannot build the building, they are not suable because of its limited liability. He stated that he has lived in Hamel for 40 years and was required to purchase four acres in order to build one home. He asked if this would be the largest number of units on a property in Medina. He stated that even though the company has 30 years of experience, the creation of this limited liability status takes that away. He stated that he would not want to see this number of units on the property. He stated that perhaps it is time for him to move on, but he still wants the best for those that will remain. Kendall Aro, 34345 Elm Creek Drive, stated that her concerns have already been shared by others and therefore she will jump to her proposed alternatives. She suggested reducing the scale of the building, finding nontoxic land for this development, do not build anything on the site and turn it into a nature preserve, build a mix of rental residential and commercial space, build on slab, or to change the design. She stated that this type of development is common in North Dakota and is not aesthetically pleasing and would not be a good fit for Uptown Hamel. Jennifer Bell, 3485 Elm Creek Drive, commented that she moved from Uptown Minneapolis and has two young children. She stated that she is very familiar with large apartment life and that is the opposite of the reason she moved to this area. She noted that many of her comments have been covered by previous speakers and through her written comments. She 6 noted that the previous developer mentioned that the MPCA views this as a brownfield and if there is a way to keep that, that would be the recommended method. She asked why then this is not just left alone. She commented that she has not seen a plan that would mitigate that cleanup in a way that does not impact the existing residents. She stated that she would prefer to see a two-story building with perhaps commercial or a restaurant use. She commented that there has to be a middle ground between the 17 units previously proposed and the 97 units proposed in this concept. Grant Kirt, 575 Hamel Road, stated that he does not have air conditioning and was concerned that the contamination could be mobilized into his home during construction. He stated that he loves the quiet nature of Hamel, and he currently lives across from an open field. He was unsure the length of construction and the impact that noise would have on his home. He commented that people already speed on the roadway and was concerned with adding that number of vehicles. He stated that he loves seeing and hearing the train go by and commented that 97 units would add a new condition that has not previously existed. Mike Holman, 3311 Red Fox Drive, stated that many of his comments were already provided by previous residents. He asked the benefit to the community that this would add. He stated that there have already been 30 townhomes approved for a nearby property and with these 97 units that would quadruple the number of residents in this area. He noted that neither of those plans included play areas for children or public amenities, therefore this would just add more residents to draw. He stated that he would like to see a reduced scale to the project and more public/community benefit. Duane Hendrickson, 185 Hamel Road, stated that he also owns the property at 4595 Pioneer Trail and has been in Medina for a decade and is President of his HOA and is speaking on behalf of those homeowners. He stated that in the last decade the traffic on Hamel Road has continued to increase with vehicles racing up and down the road. He commented that Hamel is a precious gem, and he does not believe this project belongs on Hamel Road. He stated that there are so many uncertainties. He stated that he would love to see fewer units on the property with more space. He commented that this is not an attractive project in his mind and is way too big for the community and would be an eyesore. Kyle Gregor, 495 Ridgeview Circle, commented that this building does not have any place in Hamel. He commented that the site is not suitable for this type of development because of the contamination that lies below. He stated that even though the developer has experience in developing contaminated sites, the conditions of each site are different. He was concerned with the construction process and removal of materials and the impact that could have on residents and the creek. He stated that he would like to see nothing on the site. Bill Waytas, Elm Creek Drive, commented that many people opposed their development and did not want it, but he was glad the Council approved the project. He stated that his main concern was with where greenspace would be located. He noted that perhaps they could work with the adjacent lot to preserve greenspace on the overall site. He stated that perhaps a stop sign could be placed at Hamel Road and Elm Creek Drive. He referenced an existing multi-family building in Hamel, which is owner occupied and was done well. He stated that perhaps more variation and detail could be added to make the building look nicer. He noted that perhaps the building could also be setback further. He suggested that perhaps a fence be added to prevent children from playing on the railroad tracks. Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road in Corcoran, stated that he also owns properties in Hamel and has spent time and effort in bringing Hamel to life over the years. He asked if the 7 building could be built anywhere else in Medina or whether flexibility is being requested to have a three-story building with an additional floor of underground parking. Finke replied that this use could be constructed on similarly guided high density residential property in Medina, which is limited in availability. Hoglund stated that if this is allowed, it would set precedent for other buildings of this size. He commented that if that is the vision of Uptown Hamel, so be it. He stated that if the building does not meet the height requirement, or if special flexibility is being provided for that height, that will set precedent. He stated that he is opposed to this development. Dan Lamere, 4625 Brockton, stated that he prefers ownership rather than rental units. He stated that he would rather not see this type of development but would prefer ownership of units. He asked and received confirmation that the existing pond would remain onsite. He stated that he has concern with traffic. He stated that his family has owned property in Hamel since the 1920s and he would love to see it remain as greenspace. Rett Fiskness, architect for the applicant, stated that in terms of architecture there is function and artistic. He noted that much of what is seen is functional criteria that meets the zoning code. He stated that the biggest challenge is to be contextual to the site and community as a whole. He provided additional input on the concepts that have been integrated into the design and the American colonial design that attempts to blend with the existing architecture in Hamel. He stated that the primary issues appear to be the scale and they can incorporate additional design details based on the input received. Andy Bell, 3485 Elm Creek Drive, stated that he believes that there would be additional traffic on the other roads that connect to Hamel Drive such as Pinto and Elm Creek Drive as a result of this project. Buchholz stated that one comment that came up multiple times was related to traffic. He stated that has been a consideration throughout this process. He stated that currently there are 2,500 vehicles per day on Hamel Road. He stated that people believe that apartments have traffic all day every day. He noted that in order to have restaurants and bars, you have to have the residential density to support those uses. He stated that they are attempting to provide that in a respectful manner. He appreciated the feedback received tonight and noted that he is willing to follow up with any residents that wish to continue conversations. He did not anticipate that the traffic on other roads would be impacted by this development as people would take Hamel Road to Pinto or Sioux to reach Highway 55. He believed that people would be surprised with the lack of traffic and/or movement from this development. He stated that development occurs in the community, those infrastructure needs will change. A resident asked the number of luxury buildings the developer currently has and where those are located. Buchholz replied that his business is based out of Fargo, North Dakota and provided details on the markets in which they operate in both North Dakota and Minnesota. He commented that they are in the process of a large redevelopment project in Monticello and have a letter of recommendation from that community and also have a recommendation letter from the City of Moorhead for that luxury project. He stated that they are also in the process of a development in Elk River. He noted that there are several luxury buildings in Moorhead. He stated that architecturally they design for the community, recognizing that what fits in Fargo does not fit in Medina. He stated that their intent is to design to the site and community 8 rather than repeat a building in every community. He noted some of the design elements that they would aim to emulate in this design to fit with the community. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Sedabres commented that he recognizes that the density fits the requirement but does not believe this meets the spirit of Uptown Hamel. He commented that this does not fit what he believes is the vision for Uptown Hamel. He appreciated the input of the developer to be a good neighbor but noted that this is one unit under the maximum density allowed. He stated that the plaza use, and walkability should be better considered. Grajczyk echoed many of the comments made by Sedabres. He stated that in previous reviews there have been concerns with the contamination and he would prefer to see the material excavated and removed. He commented that the size and scale of the building does not fit with the area. He also had concern with traffic. He stated that the residents spoke tonight and have unknowingly reiterated the vision of Hamel with open spaces and a more rural feel. He recognized that this is a challenging lot but believes that something could be developed that would fill the space and help to grow the community. Rhem commented that although the density is allowed by code, it does not seem to meet the vision of Uptown Hamel. He stated that whether that is done through front porches, modulation, or lesser heights, it should be considered. He stated that parks and amenities speak towards the connectivity of Hamel. He also expressed concern with the comments from Fire and the single entrance for so many residents. Nielsen stated that she has been in the community since 1970 and has seen a lot of change during that time. She commented that change is inevitable. She stated that while she would not mind seeing apartments, she would like to see density scaled back. She agreed with the comments of the others related to scale and the vision and character for Uptown Hamel. Piper agreed with the comments of the other members of the Commission. She stated that it is hard to imagine, should this be built, that someone would have a brand-new baby and walk a half mile to reach greenspace. Jacob echoed the comments of the Commission. He stated that he would like to see more landscaping with a rural/prairie look. He recognized that this is a concept but would like to see those additional details. Popp stated that he supports the comments made thus far. He stated that this is the first impression of Uptown Hamel coming from the west and therefore that should be considered and adds to the challenges of this site. Piper stated that she came to the community in 1966 and asked the year the ballroom burned. It was estimated to have occurred in the early 1970’s. Buchholz appreciated the feedback and comments from the Commission and residents tonight. Nielsen briefly recessed the meeting. Nielsen reconvened the meeting. 9 7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Setback Requirements Within Integrated/Coordinated Developments in the Business, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts Finke presented a proposed ordinance amendment that is relatively limited in scale and would add flexibility to commercial, business, and industrial developments that share associated improvements and provided a brief overview of the property elements of flexibility. Piper asked and received confirmation that there are some applications that this would impact. Jacob asked if this would be a one of situation or whether this would be fairly common in the future. Finke replied that the flexibility with regard to parking, loading and setbacks is fairly common. He stated that there is not a lot of property zoned industrial park and there has not been a lot of new development of that type. He stated that he was surprised that language did not already exist in the code. He stated that in terms of the frontage flexibility, the ability to layout lots to share a driveway makes sense, using the Loram project as an example. He stated that most properties do have frontage on public or private streets and therefore that would depend on the circumstances. Popp asked what would happen in the event of a split sale, or redevelopment. Finke stated that the setback flexibility would assume there is a legal document recorded against the benefited properties identifying those shared aspects. He noted that an access easement would be used for frontage situations. Popp asked the advantage of an ordinance versus the use of a PUD. Finke stated that from the perspective of a PUD, that would provide more discretion for the City. He stated that from the prospective of a developer, they may be less likely to propose that without knowing the perspective and level of discretion of the City. He noted that if the removal of the frontage requirement is meant to encourage creative design, that would not be provided in a straightforward development proposal. Grajczyk stated that he does like this concept. He stated that business owners are protective of their spaces and was cautious of conflicts that could arise. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. No comments. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. Rhem commented that it would seem to make sense to make the code consistent. He was a bit nervous about the frontage requirement and liked that the PUD provides more scrutiny for that process. Popp stated that he is also supportive in moving this forward, but it is hard to know without seeing specific examples. Nielsen asked if there have been any consequences to this being available in other districts. 10 Finke replied that is currently limited to rural residential lots which have other requirements such as suitable soils. He stated that it would be fair to suspect that some divisions in the rural area were allowed to have back-to-back lots. He stated that if the frontage would have been a requirement, that would be resulted in longer and skinnier lots or flag lots would have most likely been utilized in order to meet the frontage requirement. He stated that there is nothing that prevents commercial or industrial developments from having a flag lot. He stated that a private road would have more width and space than a driveway. Sedabres stated that he believes as drafted that provides flexibility for the unknown as the City Council would still have discretion. Finke noted that there was some clean up of the ordinance language proposed in the amendment as well. Nielsen stated that she struggled for the same reasons as the PUD would provide more control but may also discourage developers from integrating, which may be more desirable. Popp commented that if the ordinance includes discretion for the City Council he would support the change. Rhem commented that it looks well written, and the City Council and City Attorney would have discretion. Motion by Grajczyk, seconded by Rhem to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment pertaining to lot standards within integrated developments as drafted. Motion carries unanimously. 8. Public Hearing – Scannell Properties/Loram – Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for Subdivision of Three Lots and Development of Approximately 396,000 Sq. Ft. of Warehouse/Office/Industrial on 25 Acres – East of Arrowhead Drive, South of Highway 55 (PIDs 1111823220003 and 1111823230001) Finke presented a development request for 396,000 square feet south of the existing Loram facility and east of Arrowhead Drive. He identified the subject site which is currently farm field with wetlands in various locations. He reviewed the adjacent property uses and guiding of the property. He presented the proposed site plan noting that three buildings are proposed and the applicant proposes a shared access of the southern Loram driveway and a second access along the southern property line. He reviewed details of the proposed elevations and landscaping plan. He reviewed the dimensional standards of the industrial zoning district, noting that the lots would meet those standards. He stated that the two rear lots would not have frontage as proposed but would be allowed if the previous ordinance amendment considered is adopted. He provided details on right-of-way and recommended transportation improvements. He stated that all of the wetlands on the site would be impacted in some way and advised that any impacts would be subject to Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) review and replacement. He noted that the proposed plan is not sufficient to meet the WCA requirements and the applicant is working on that plan. He noted that the City has additional wetland impact regulations and noted that the required buffers are not included in the proposal. He stated that the required environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) was completed earlier this year and a negative declaration was made for an environmental impact statement (EIS). He noted that there were multiple comments encouraging reduced wetland impacts for the development. He reviewed the proposed site plan noting the shared parking and other elements that would be allowed if the previously discussed ordinance amendment 11 were adopted. He stated that some adjustments to the site plan were recommended to bring the site into compliance including reduced hardcover. He stated that the applicant is considering adding additional land in order to reduce the percentage of hardcover. He commented that the buildings as originally submitted may exceed the maximum height but noted that the elevations have been updated to meet the 35-foot building height requirement. He noted that it appears the building materials as proposed fall short of the requirements for brick and glass and that should be updated. He commented that in terms of modulation, the front of the building facing Arrowhead should have additional modulation. He stated that additional detail has been requested for parking and the likely split of uses between the project. He stated that staff does not recommend approval as presented and noted the additional conditions and comments of staff. Jacob stated that the Diamond Lake Regional Trail (DLRT) is proposed to go north at some point and asked if that route has been better determined and whether it would go along Arrowhead. Finke stated that the DLRT proposed to go east at Tamarack and traversing the School District property to Hamel Road. He noted that there is an existing trail that goes along Arrowhead and could provide an opportunity as an alternate route. Sedabres asked if the intent would be to build three buildings on three lots. Finke confirmed that the two first buildings would be phase one and the timing was not yet known for the third building. Sedabres asked if the south facing building would be visible from the adjacent property. Finke stated that staff was proceeding with the approval of the overall development, accepting that the timing of the third building is not yet known. Scott Mull, Scannell Properties, commented that they are the development partner with Loram. He recognized that there is a long list of items to be resolved, but the macro issue is related to the wetlands. He commented that he is an avid outdoorsman and is environmentally sensitive. He believed that the wetland authorities have done a good job in their review. He commented that the wetland authorities have restrictions to what they can and cannot do. He commented that the wetlands they intend to fill are soybeans. He stated that these are not wetlands that harbor wildlife, but crops. He stated that the mitigation requirements are to mitigate every unit of wetland with two units of actual wetland. He noted that this project would enhance the environmental picture as they would be purchasing credits of actual value wetlands rather than farmland that has been designated as wetland. He asked that common sense be brought into the equation that the wetland authorities could not. He commented that they can work with staff to resolve the other issues related to exterior finishes, parking, traffic flow, etc. He stated that they would not want to continue to spend money on design if they cannot resolve the wetland issue. Brad Willams, Loram, stated that they have about 50 years of history in the Hamel and Medina area. He commented that they are a local company that services all of North America and locations across the world. He stated that Loram and the City have worked well together throughout that time and appreciated that partnership. He commented that they currently have materials that they cannot fit within their building and are scattered throughout other locations. He stated that this expansion would allow them to further consolidate those spaces. He noted that their site at 1550 Hamel Road would be moved to this expanded facility and that site could then be opened for redevelopment. He commented that the three-building 12 concept and wetland concept is important to them because they need that facility space to support their current needs and the continued needs over the next 20 years. He stated that this plan works well based on the adjacency of the buildings and access. He stated that this would allow an integrated site to bring suppliers into the site. Nielsen asked if there is additional property that could be added to this request. Willams confirmed that they own additional property and provided the location. He noted that as they replat, they could bring that in to square off the lot and reduce the overall hardcover percentage for the site. He noted that property is mostly wetland. Piper stated that she sees the term owner/developer. Willams stated that Loram owns the land. Piper asked how Scannell comes into this. Willams commented that building two would be built to suit for their use while the other two buildings would be built to suite as joint ventures between Loram and Scannell. Piper commented that she recalled years ago when additional parking was added, there was an agreement that additional parking could be provided and asked if that would be part of the new development. Willams commented that the joint parking agreement would continue with the Motorplex. Piper asked if the older building on the corner would be abandoned and something new done with that site. Willams confirmed that once they are able to move that operation into the new facility, they would place that property on the market. Grajczyk asked if the new building would be solely office and not manufacturing. Willams replied that it would be a mix of office and warehouse. He stated that they are running out of outdoor storage at their different facilities across the country and want to centralize that in this location. Jacob asked the potential businesses that might occupy the other two buildings. Willams replied that the joint venture would only be between Loram and Scannell, but the tenants could vary. He commented that they would have high quality tenants as they would have the ability to choose their neighbor and want to ensure that the neighboring property would be as high quality as Loram. He stated that they are attempting to find uses that would be complimentary to Loram. Mull commented that the building fronting Arrowhead would be attractive to feeder companies that would be complimentary to Loram, but it would also be open to the public and provided examples on the types of companies that might be attracted to that site. He stated that the third building will be market driven as to when it would be constructed. He stated that they will be improving the environmental picture through this development with the purchase of wetland credits, and this would bring additional tax base to Medina as well as 13 bringing more jobs to the community. He noted that there would not be significant traffic impact as traffic would go directly to Highway 55 from Arrowhead. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 9:36 p.m. No comments. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:37 p.m. Piper asked if the building schematics are flexible. She asked if the intention is to provide approval to subdivide or whether that would include the building approvals as well. Finke stated that the requested action is related to preliminary plat and site plan review for the subdivision but recognized that some significant changes would be needed for the plans. He asked whether those changes are significant enough that it would require this item to come back for another public hearing, or whether the recommendation could be made based on the comments and conditions recommended by staff being met. He stated that the applicant has an interest to present this, or similar information to the Council, relating to the wetland impacts. He noted that the developer would like to have the wetland input prior to making significant changes to the plan. Mull commented that this is essentially what they would like to build but recognized that some adjustments would be needed in order to meet minimum standards. He would not propose to change the building locations or footprints. Sedabres asked if there is a commitment to increase the required materials to meet the minimum requirements. Mull confirmed that. Nielsen stated that she appreciates Loram being in the community for so long but is not in favor of the request at this time. She stated that if the wetland lines are greyed that could open a slippery slope for other requests. She stated that she would have preferred to refuse to hear the request because she believes it to be incomplete. Piper stated that there is a Hindu group dealing with the same wetland issue. Finke stated that there was an adjacent site plan review south of this site and they would have handled their compliance under the same regulation review but noted that those projects are not integrated. Rhem stated that he shares the concerns with what needs to be addressed. He stated that at the highest level he supports the project but needs to understand the issue of wetland impacts better. He agreed that it does look like a field but would challenge the applicant to look for ways to address the feedback related to the WCA. Grajczyk commented that what is presented is what he would envision for this area and is similar to development down the road in Corcoran. He stated that in terms of wetlands, he believes that staff did an excellent job reviewing this. He recognized that there are a lot of holes in the request. He stated that overall, he does support the request and believes that it fits within this area of the community. 14 Popp acknowledged that there is synergy in this project, and it makes sense. He stated that he would like to see this move forward at some point but was hesitant as to how they would get there. He commented that it is hard to have confidence in the wetland issue at this time. He stated that he believed that this was a concept review given some of the lacking information and inability to meet the code requirements. He stated that without those details he would have a hard time moving it forward. He was curious to see if there is flexibility in the design to meet the other requirements such as hardcover. Sedabres echoed the comments of Popp related to hardcover. He stated that he has similar opinion of the wetlands as it does look like a field and would want more information. He stated that Loram is a great partner and employer in the community and therefore would support moving forward. Finke provided additional input on the potential actions the Commission could take on this item. He noted that the Commission could also choose to provide input on the wetland issue. Nielsen stated that as proposed tonight she would not support this because of the wetland impacts. Piper commented that her expectation would be that there would be answers to the wetland issues the next time the Commission sees this. She stated that she likes the other items but needs more information on the wetlands. Jacob agreed with Piper. Rhem agreed and stated that he would like to see what has been done to mitigate the impact or why the applicant is unable to mitigate that impact. Grajczyk stated that he can understand the challenges of what is ahead for the applicant with the watershed. Sedabres referenced the parcel to the northeast and asked if there are wetlands on that corner. Finke confirmed that area is mostly wetlands. Sedabres asked if anyone would feel differently if there were something in this development plan that served to protect and preserve wetlands to the northeast on the property also owned by the applicant. Nielsen liked that creative thinking. Grajczyk replied that wetland credits can also be purchased for mitigation. Rhem noted that is already wetland and therefore would be protected. Finke replied that if that were brought into the plat it would trigger buffer requirements. Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Grajczyk, to recommend that the preliminary plat and site plan address the matters identified in the staff report, explicitly the issue of wetlands and buffers. Motion carries unanimously. 15 9. Public Hearing – Weston Woods of Medina – East of Mohawk Drive, South of Chippewa Road – PUD Amendment to Increase Maximum Height for Single Family Lots from 32 Feet to 36 Feet Finke asked and received confirmation that the Commission is comfortable with the information in the staff report and welcomed questions. Rhem asked about implications of the difference between 35 feet and 36 feet as discussed. Finke stated that the suggestion of staff to not exceed 35 feet was based on what was common in other communities. He stated that 36 would be a unique number and it seemed that 35 feet provided flexibility to achieve what was being sought in this development. Popp provided an example which he believed would actually add eight feet in height. Finke stated that if everything else were to remain static, adding four feet of additional height increases the midpoint of the roof from the eave, to actually be eight feet from sea level. Dean Hanson, Hanson Builders, stated that they hope to be the custom builder for Weston Woods which has several different products of homes. He stated that the issue they ran into is that their buildings do not fit the current ordinance in terms of height. He stated that a few things have changed in building since he began in 1979 as homes have become bigger and taller. He provided an example of a home built in Plymouth that would not be allowed to built under the current PUD regulations in this development. He explained what is unique in Medina to calculate height compared to other communities. He noted that while the front height requirement would be met, it would not be met on the side and rear of the home and therefore the average formula that Medina uses would not be met. He explained how grades can be manipulated to meet the required averages but ultimately creates other issues and not the best end product. He referenced an area of Weston Woods that would have the option for a lookout on the side to take advantage of the pond views but would then create an issue for the average height although it would meet the height requirement in the front. Finke stated that it is worth noting that the current definition does lead folks towards having to make tradeoffs, whether that is the grading around the home or lesser pitch. He stated that the matter of full basement, walkout or lookout does not have that flexibility for residents as those are settled by the development. Hanson provided another example of a home that would meet the requirements but noted that is not the type of home that would be found within this development. Popp asked the sale price of the first example compared to the second example. Hanson stated that the first example would have a price around $1,300,000 compared to the second which would be around $700,000. Jacob asked the number of lots for this product in the development. Hanson replied that 40 lots would be this type of product. Nielsen asked how many lots would not meet the 35 feet. 16 Hanson replied that 85 percent of the homes could be built using that calculation and he could use some of the other methods to meet the average. He stated that with 36 feet all of his models could be constructed. Nielsen asked why Medina took a different approach on its calculation. Finke replied that it was purposeful on the vision of that time of not wanting to have super high peaks. He noted that the height was adjusted from 30 feet to 32 feet in 2008. Hanson commented that it would also work to take a simple approach to stay with 32 feet but only take the one measurement from the front. He noted that most other communities use a front height of 35 feet. He confirmed that he could build all his products if only the front height were measured and that were left at 32 feet. He noted that the unintended consequence of the average method is the impact that it has on a walkout lot home. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 10:19 p.m. Mark Smith, developer, stated that he visited other developments in the community and commented on the way those developers made the average calculation work using retaining walls and window wells to manipulate the grade. He stated that a look out and walkout provide more natural light and increased safety. He noted that the proposed development plans for those other developments also do not match the as-builts. Finke commented that the average grade calculation is not that uncommon as a number of communities use that method. He also questioned enforceability. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 10:22 p.m. Sedabres commented that Hanson builds wonderful homes that he would love to see in Medina. He stated that he is conflicted because this is the desired product in Medina. He noted that there are other homes in Medina that have made this work and therefore this would seem to accommodate the easy floorplan. He stated that this is the product and intent, but other developers have built homes without issues. Grajczyk stated that he is looking at this solely for the Weston Woods development. He noted that he has lived in a Hanson home, and it was well built and would add potential and value to the community. He stated that in this PUD, he would support the 36-foot height. Rhem echoed the comments of Grajczyk. Jacob also agreed with Grajczyk. Popp stated that he would be interested in a future discussion related to home height. He stated that he does support the 36-foot height for this PUD. Piper referenced the developments on the north side of Highway 55 and asked if there is a lot more land for development of homes in that area. She asked if this would set a precedent. Finke replied that this would apply only to the PUD. He stated that the applicant has suggested, and staff does not necessarily disagree, that there are unique aspects to this PUD that would not set precedent. He stated that perhaps there should be a more broad review of building height in the near future based on the building trends. 17 Popp asked if the views of the development would be a consideration of a PUD. Finke confirmed that a PUD does provide flexibility to respond to circumstances. Piper stated that the developer/builder is requesting a height of 36 feet. Hanson confirmed that a height of 36 feet would allow all his home models. Piper asked if the builder could work with 35 feet. Hanson confirmed that he could live with 35 feet but could not build at 32 feet. Piper stated that she was thinking 35 feet because that is the height most cities use. Hanson stated that he is currently building in seven cities and has no issues because the height is measured from the front grade, whereas the average method penalizes the walkout model. Nielsen asked if there are any complaints of seeing those homes from the backside. Hanson commented that could arise in a smaller development where homes are back-to-back whereas this community would have great views. Motion by Rhem, seconded by Jacob, to recommend approval of the PUD amendment for Weston Woods to increase the building height to 36 feet. Motion carries unanimously. 10. Approval of the July 12, 2022 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Piper, seconded by Jacob, to approve the July 12, 2022, Planning Commission minutes with the noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. 11. Adjourn Motion by Piper, seconded by Jacob, to adjourn the meeting at 10:32 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.