Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-11-2022 PC Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday October 11, 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, and Braden Rhem. Absent: None. Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke and City Planner Deb Dion 2. Changes to Agenda No comments made. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings Finke provided an update on recent City Council actions. 4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Grajczyk volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 5. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. 6. Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – 2575 Cates Ranch Drive – Oppidan – Concept Plan for Approximately 300,000 SF Warehouse/Industrial Development (PID 0411823140004) Finke stated that this proposal would be for approximately 300,000 square feet of primarily warehouse space. He summarized the previous reviews and actions that resulted in conditional approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the site. He noted that this proposal is similar to concept three that was reviewed earlier this year and reviewed the details of the updated concept including access, parking, stormwater ponds, landscaping/screening, and architectural renderings. He noted that during the previous discussions there was input related to truck traffic and a desire to push development away from residential property and towards Willow Drive. He stated that the applicant attempted to address some of those comments from the previous review in this updated concept. He provided additional input related to setback requirements as well as additional ways to encourage trucks to utilize Willow Drive rather than Chippewa. He also noted changes that would be necessary related to the number of loading dock doors and traffic improvements that would be required with the project. Popp referenced the front yard setback and asked where the 17 feet was on site plan rather than the required 20 feet. 2 Finke identified the area on the southern looped access. Popp asked for clarification on the ten percent limit for the dock. Finke stated that loading docks are limited to ten percent of the perimeter unless the docks are screened by another structure, such as a courtyard. He noted the docks on the western building are screened and therefore that limitation would not apply, but that limitation would apply on the eastern building. Nielsen asked if the eastern building would be screened by the wall. Finke replied that is not a proposed wall, but berm and landscaping. Jacob referenced the west side, facing Willow Drive, and asked for details from the parking to the road. Finke replied that 25 feet would be needed at minimum from the parking to the right-of-way. Jacob asked if there would be potential to use a berm or screening between the road and buildings to the public road. Finke replied that there are landscaping requirements but there are not buffer yard requirements between two business properties. Piper asked, and received confirmation, that 45 feet of building height is the maximum height in the business district. Jacob asked if that would provide an opportunity for a mezzanine level or second story in the office area. Jay Moore, Oppidan, stated that they have been working with the Cates family for over a year on this project. He stated that they are attempting to gain input and determine if there is support for this concept before moving forward into a more formal submission of plans. He recognized the off-site improvements that will be made to improve traffic as part of this project and highlighted the other changes that have been made to the concept in order to address the previous comments of the Commission and Council. He stated that they have attempted to minimize the wetland impacts to the extent possible. He stated that the Cates family has also agreed to provide the City with an easement for a future lift station on their northern property. He commented that the number of docks seems to be a little light for the eastern building and asked if there would be any flexibility to request additional docks if that is necessary. He noted that there is a berm and pond and there would be landscaping. Nielsen asked if the applicant agrees with the conditions noted by staff. Moore commented that he did have questions about the loading dock and also related to the architectural requirements for the northern elevation. Grajczyk asked if there are specific businesses that the applicant would target for these buildings as a tenant. Moore commented that they currently are not working with a tenant, but they do have a meeting setup next month with a local business looking for a headquarters. He noted that 3 they have a similar project in Chaska that has a lot of interest. He stated that once a building goes up, they receive a lot of interest. He expected several high-quality users having interest in this project. Piper asked when this would be anticipated to be occupied. Moore replied most likely spring of 2024. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Isai Damyan, 2240 Chippewa Road, stated that his main concern is with the proximity to his home along with concerns for noise and traffic. Finke stated that the applicant currently proposes a setback of 101 feet on that side, where the minimum setback is 100 feet. Damyan stated that he would also have concern with the building height. He stated that if this does move forward, he would prefer to not see the structure close to his home. He asked if there would be any fencing. Jacob noted the condition related to buffering which could include berming, landscaping and/or fencing. Finke commented that perhaps the applicant could address the use of the eastern looped drive. He stated that staff has suggested some things in attempt to minimize activity on the eastern side. Moore replied that it is provided for the fire lane. Jacob asked if that loop could go out to Cates Ranch Drive rather than Chippewa in order to redirect that traffic towards Willow. Moore stated that they would place appropriate signage throughout the development directing truck traffic to Willow. He noted that the lane on the east is strictly for the fire lane. R.J. and Jolene Burgess, 2490 Cates Ranch Drive, stated that he was concerned that his lack of comments at earlier meeting may have been mistaken as his support. He stated that placing the buildings back so far with docks facing Cates Ranch Drive is a concern for those properties along Cates Ranch Drive. He stated that he would prefer something similar to option one where the docks face each other and therefore the noise and lights would be screened by the buildings. He asked if the buildings could be spun so that the docks do not face Cates Ranch Drive. He stated that they are not opposed to the development but would like some changes to be made so that they do not see so much of the traffic coming and going. Jolene Burgess commented that it will be tough for them to get in and out of their driveway as proposed. She commented that the noise and scent from the loading docks will impact their property. Burgess commented that he is also concerned with the additional traffic on Willow Drive as truck traffic already parks along side of Willow at times. He asked why the traffic could not be directed to Chippewa rather than placing additional traffic onto Willow. 4 Finke stated that there was discussion during the past concept that included the northern parcel which included use of Chippewa for employees. He highlighted some of the traffic improvements that would be part of the project. He noted that there was not a stacking concern for trucks to get onto Highway 55 from Willow and the real concern was with employees during peak times. Burgess asked the path that truck traffic would be taking to come into and leave the site. Finke stated that staff suggested encouraging trucks to use Willow as much as possible which could be done onsite for trucks leaving the site. He commented that there would not be restrictions on inbound traffic. Burgess commented that if the docks face each other, he would not see a reason trucks would need to park alongside the road to wait as the courtyard would provide more room for staging. J. Burgess provided input on the difficulty to get onto Highway 55 at that location, noting that it often takes a few light cycles. Jacob asked if the City could request MnDOT to change the light cycle timing. Finke replied that at this time that intersection is not monitored but stated that as part of this project, the applicant would be providing a monitoring camera. He noted that MnDOT would not find it unreasonable for a vehicle to wait a few cycles to get onto Highway 55, as MnDOT prioritizes traffic on Highway 55. Burgess stated that they do not have much challenge with the western building. He asked why the eastern building could not be turned 90 degrees to the south and left justified to be closer to Chippewa. He commented that they have ingress and egress rights onto Cates Ranch Drive and asked if they would receive any information on the changes that would be made to that roadway. Finke noted that the same notice for this meeting would be provided for the formal application. J. Burgess stated that when they purchased this home they intended to be there forever. She commented that the ingress/egress for their property may be blocked with truck traffic. She asked if they could split off from that to have their own access. Finke commented on a potential change that could be made to split that driveway off but noted that would impact the site layout. He commented that the lots to the east do not have frontage on a public street, therefore the dedication of that right-of-way is important, but the location is not locked in where that could be provided. Moore commented that he did not believe there would be trucks parking on the east side of Willow for this site. He stated that the trailer court could house 50 trucks easily with additional parking available. He commented that the existing buildings with truck traffic were designed in the past and are thriving but perhaps not designed to support that. He stated that this building would be office with employees and a warehouse with some distribution. He stated that if needed, a truck could wait internally. He stated that from the previous discussions it seems concept three was the preferred option of the Commission and Council and therefore they moved forward with that design which is efficient and minimizes impacts 5 to wetland. He stated that while there is a potential to move the layout, it would impact the environment. Nielsen asked the hours the truck court would be used. Moore replied that would typically be used during business hours. Piper asked if trucks could arrive early and wait for business hours. Moore replied that could potentially occur. Popp referenced the screening wall and asked the approximate height. Mike Brandt, project engineer, replied that would be a berm of approximately six feet with landscaping on the top. Popp noted that the berm would be six feet with trees to provide additional screening. J. Burgess stated that she understands the comment related to wetland impacts. She noted that a memory care center was just developed, and a pond was dug to mitigate the wetland impacts. Burgess commented that when the applicant’s team was speaking at the last meeting, the Council picked the option they believed would best fit. He noted that he did not make a comment because the applicant stated there was not yet a user. He stated that he did not want to provide a lot of input without a user. He asked why the building could not be turned. Nielsen stated that was addressed noting the desire to minimize wetland impacts. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Jacob commented that he likes the overall concept of the building and warehouse/distribution center. He stated that he does have input on berming and provided the location of a distribution park in Plymouth which uses large berms to screen from an adjacent residential development. Grajczyk commented that perhaps public safety could follow up on the comment related to trucks already parking along Willow to address that issue. He agreed that screening will be a priority in order to create a buffer. He recognized that this is a challenging area because there are some residential homes along with business development. He asked if Cates Ranch Drive could be connected to the east to Mohawk, as that could create another potential route. He stated that perhaps the size of the easterly building could be shrunk a bit to reduce the impact on adjacent properties and maintain the more rural feel. He stated that color selection could also help this fit into the area. Rhem agreed with the previous comments noting that his biggest concern is related to the berming and a desire to minimize the impacts to neighbors. Nielsen stated that originally, she preferred concept three, but looking at the two-building plan she had not thought about the beeping from the trucks. She noted that does concern her and therefore she would prefer to rotate the building to have the truck bays face each other. She stated that perhaps the south road at the end of the west building could be removed to force the traffic towards the north onto Willow. 6 Piper commented that she also likes the idea of rotating the buildings given the concerns that were brought forward. She stated that if that is not possible, she would recommend shortening the east building by 20 feet. Finke stated that if the docks were orientated towards each other, more docks would be allowed as the ten percent limitation would then not apply. Popp commented that he likes that the wetland impacts have been mitigated and greatly reduced from the original concept. He referenced the comment about rotating the buildings, noting that would be much more supported. He applauded the applicant for their wetland mitigation impacts. 7. Public Hearing – Scannell Properties/Loram – Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for Subdivision of Three Lots and Development of Approximately 396,000 SF of Warehouse/Office/Industrial – East of Arrowhead Drive, South of Highway 55 (PIDs 1111823220003 and 1111823230001) Finke stated that supplemental information has been provided since the last review of the Commission related to reduced wetland impacts, wetland buffer averaging, and landscaping. He stated that the related plans have not yet been updated as they wanted to gain input from the Commission and Council prior to updating those related plans. He stated that additional land was added into the site to reduce the hardcover percentage. He reviewed the additional landscaping that has been provided along with the additional architectural materials and details that were added. He stated that even though the wetland impacts were reduced, there would still be 1.22 acres of impact. He noted again that with the additional land that was added, the applicant was able to get under the hardcover threshold. He stated that information has been provided by the applicant on their projection for the parking need. He stated that this would appear to meet the minimum parking requirements, but staff has concerns with a lack of space for proof of parking, should that become an issue. He noted that the applicant stated that if there was a use that needed additional parking, it would most likely not need the same space for loading docks and that could then be converted to parking. He stated that staff suggests memorialization of the uses as proposed in order to ensure there would continue to be sufficient parking. Popp referenced the wetland to the west next to Arrowhead, identified as wetland eight, and asked how much of that wetland would be impacted. A representative for the applicant replied that impact was noted as about 20,000 square feet, which is about half of that wetland. Jacob asked if there is aquatic life or vegetation that would be an area of concern. Finke replied that a function and values assessment of the wetlands was done, and the western wetland was identified as a manage three, which is on the lower end, whereas the eastern wetland was higher but did not believe it housed any noted species. Jacob commented that most of the wetlands are dry today. Phil Homan, CEO of Loram, stated that he is also a citizen of Medina. He referenced the feedback that was received in the prior review and noted that they made changes to the plan to address those concerns. He stated that they have also had a few meetings with the TEP related to the wetlands. He stated that he has worked at Loram for almost 30 years and the 7 company has been a good corporate citizen of Medina since the late 1960s. He stated that the subject property was acquired in the 1980s for strategic growth opportunities in the future. He stated that the land was rented to farmers in the past and a portion was sold to the MotorPlex development. He stated that in the last 50 years they have completed four additions to the existing building and ran out of room on that parcel for additional expansion. He stated that they currently lease space in several warehouse facilities in the metro area and this expansion would allow Loram to consolidate those leased spaces onto this parcel. He stated that while Loram has locations across the world and in the U.S., they consider Medina to be home. He stated that his office window stares out at what would be the northern portion of this proposed development. He stated that he also owns a unit in the MotorPlex, therefore he will see the development from all sides. He stated that as a citizen of Medina he would not promote a project that he does not believe will be a good fit for Medina. He noted that the principal of Scannell also happens to be a Medina resident, therefore there are two partners in the project that have a vested interest in Medina. He stated that they have held this land for some time and now have a need to use it. He stated that this also provides an opportunity to capitalize on the interest in this area of the metro and provide space for another user. He stated that they would have liked to move forward earlier but the construction season has passed and therefore they would like to move forward with construction in the spring. Piper asked if Loram would be using buildings one and two with future development by others. Homan commented that Loram would fully occupy building two which would be primarily warehouse needs. He stated that building one would be constructed at the same time and they would intend to attract likeminded vendors of theirs, as that would lead to more efficient operations. Piper referenced the future development by others area and asked if the ownership of that property would remain the same. Homan stated that Loram would completely own lot two but would share ownership with Scannell of the other two lots. He stated that buildings one and two would be constructed at the same time and building three would be constructed in the future based on market demand. Piper asked who the City would deal with when there are plans for that property. Homan stated that the development will be as proposed but building three would be more dependent on the tenant that comes forward similar to the Oppidan request prior to this case. He confirmed that all buildings would look and feel the same to match the campus. Finke replied that the plat would be laid out with the separate lot and the site plan review would include all three buildings. He stated that if the third building came forward in the next four years, it could proceed to permit as presented in these plans. Ashley Pane, wetland professional at Kimley-Horn, stated that they have reviewed multiple concepts for this site before deciding on the site plan as proposed. She noted that they began with delineation in summer of 2021 and provided details on the wetlands on the site. She stated that they provided a full wetland avoidance concept which had one building that would not impact wetlands but noted that does not meet the needs of the applicant. She also reviewed the two-building scenario which would also not meet the needs of the applicant and would still have wetland impacts with the docks visible from Arrowhead. She stated that this project included an EAW, and a negative declaration was issued by the City Council earlier 8 this year which included a concept with larger buildings and 2.3 acres of wetland impacts. She stated that the comments from the concept from the City and other agencies included a desire for a reduced size and wetland impact. She reviewed the different concepts that were reviewed after that time that included three buildings and attempted to reduce the scale and impacts to wetlands. She stated that their proposal would avoid the highest quality portion of the wetland and they would also propose to create additional wetland along Arrowhead to replace some of what would be lost. She noted that about the same area of wetland would be provided along Arrowhead. She stated that the applicant would also purchase bank credits at a 2:1 ratio to mitigate the loss of the remainder of the wetlands that would be impacted. She noted that the applicant would not request credit for the additional wetland created along Arrowhead Drive, that would simply be done in addition. Brian Wurdeman, Kimley-Horn, stated that they have added bike parking for each of the buildings, enhanced pedestrian connectivity between each of the buildings, added EV ready parking areas, and adding additional landscaping along Arrowhead Drive. Scott Moe, Scannell Properties, stated that Loram needs to expand, and the other two buildings would be a joint investment between Loram and Scannell. He stated that the building closest to Arrowhead would attract a higher finish user and provided examples. He stated that smaller tenants would be attracted to the first building and believed that could be a combination of Loram vendors/suppliers and others. He stated that the building fronting Arrowhead would completely screen the courtyard for trucks. He stated that this project would benefit Loram and the other businesses, increase the tax base, bring in employment options, and improve the aesthetic along Arrowhead Drive. He commented that the wetland authorities have done a great job on this proposal, and he acknowledged the importance of wetlands. He stated that the wetland entity has limitations on how flexible they can be as they view a wetland as a wetland, whereas most of these wetlands are dry and farmed. He noted that they would be replacing these low-quality wetlands with higher quality wetlands of a ratio of 2:1, along with increasing the wetland value near Arrowhead. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:57 p.m. Phil Holman, 150 Sunrise Court, stated that this property is bordered by Loram, the MotorPlex, a swamp, land purchased by the School District, and additional land with a purpose to be determined. He noted that this is an opportunity for Loram to pick its neighbors and stated that not one residential property would be impacted. He stated that he could not think of a more perfect spot in Medina to place this type of development. He stated that he has also had a meeting with the religious institution that is being constructed in this area in attempt to be a good neighbor and that organization had no issues. He stated that they also had a similar conversation with the MotorPlex that also did not have any concerns. He commented that there are businesses in Hamel that are outgrowing their space, and this could be an option for those businesses to locally relocate which would free up space in Hamel as well. Piper asked what will be done with the property at the corner of Arrowhead and Hamel. Homan replied that Mayor Martin and Finke met with him recently. He stated that their intention would be to move the activity from that site to building one which would orphan that piece of property for them. He stated that would leave the property available for redevelopment or sale. He stated that their vision for that five acres would be to have it redeveloped into something more appropriate. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. 9 Popp stated that in reviewing the report there was one thing that jumped out, the statement from the TEP that the applicant has not taken sufficient effort to avoid wetland impacts. He referenced a two-building concept that was included in the review from the applicant tonight that would have less wetland impact. He stated that Loram is a successful business in the community, and he wants to support this project but also wants to understand why the two- building option would not be feasible as there is similar square footage between the two building and three building concepts and similar distances between the buildings. He stated that the wetland creation sounds wonderful and seems to offset a large amount of the wetland impacts. He stated that if the 2:1 mitigation credits would be purchased and additional wetland would be created, he would be more supportive of the request. Rhem commented that if the screening were not provided by building one, the City would likely request additional screening. Finke stated that the wetland itself is subject to Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) rules and there is a minimum buffer required adjacent to the wetlands. He stated that part of the mitigation area would be protected greenspace which would be similar to the created wetlands. Piper commented that she supports the request and did not see a reason to deny the request. Rhem commended the development team for answering the questions he had during the last review related to the wetlands, mitigation and steps that have been taken in an attempt to avoid those impacts. He stated that he now feels that he has a better understanding and supports the request. Grajczyk also commended Kimley-Horn for the presentation and review that has been completed for this process. He stated that he also supports Loram and the desired expansion. He commented that these are farmed and low-quality wetlands and because all options have been reviewed, he can support this plan. Jacob agreed that he likes the plan and wished the applicant well. Nielsen stated that she disagrees with the comments of the Commission. She appreciated all that has gone into the design and attempts to address the feedback from the last review. She did not see a need for lot three as there is not a need for that at this time. She noted that she also does not see a need for building one, although there are ideas for that use. She stated that she prefers a two-building concept. She acknowledged that a wetland is a wetland and did not want this request to set precedent and therefore will not support this request. Wurdeman stated that Hennepin County has reviewed this and wants the majority of the traffic to come from the north, therefore the length of the building in the two-building concept would limit the ability for access, to get parked vehicles along the frontage, and would impact traffic flow. He stated that the truck movements would also be difficult to get around that building. Finke commented that with roadway extensions the southern access point would be in play, even though Hennepin County prefers the northern access. Homan stated that they are going to be moving equipment and material between the existing building and the new building. He noted that the ownership of the new buildings will also be different and therefore combining uses would make that difficult. He explained that moving 10 equipment and material between facilities that goes through traffic, parking and pedestrian areas would also not be safe. He stated that in the discussions with the TEP there was an agreed need for 380,000 square feet but the TEP did not agree that there was a need for 396,000 square feet and therefore there seems to be incongruity in how the need is established. He stated that they will be investing $40,000,000 into this project and he would not be doing that if there was not a need. He stated that the TEP agreed to impacts of .76 acres of wetlands but not with 1.22 acres. He stated that they are creating three acres of wetlands that do not exist today with their mitigation credits. He stated that the TEP provided their preference without expressing that in a meeting with them. He noted that the preferred option of the TEP does not meet the County requirement, nor does it meet his needs as the business. He stated that their proposed request is roughly the same as the preferred option of the TEP. Finke stated that offsite mitigation always requires 2:1 replacement. Motion by Rhem, seconded by Jacob, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and site plan review subject to the conditions within the staff report. Motion carries 4 – 2 (Popp and Nielsen opposed). 8. Approval of the September 13, 2022 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Piper, seconded by Rhem, to approve the September 13, 2022, Planning Commission minutes with noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. 9. Adjourn Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.