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.