Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-09-2022 PC Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Rhem called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Adeel Ahmed, John Jacob, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper, Justin Popp, and Braden Rhem. Absent: Planning Commissioner Ron Grajczyk. Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke, and Associate Planner Debra Dion. 2. Changes to Agenda No comments made. 3. Introduction of Planning Commissioners The members of the Commission introduced themselves as a new member was appointed to the Commission. Nielsen noted that she assisted with the election the previous day and therefore had asked Rhem to Chair the meeting tonight. 4. Update from City Council Proceedings Finke provided an update on recent actions of the City Council related to cases that had been recommended by the Planning Commission as well as other recent actions. 5. Representative at Next City Council Meeting Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Popp volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 6. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. He did not anticipate that there would be any hearings to consider in December and noted that meeting may be canceled. 7. Public Hearing – Meander Park and Boardwalk – Meander Road, East of Arrowhead Drive – Medina Ventures – PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat for Commercial Development Including Event Venue, Daycare, Restaurant and Retail (PID 0211823330003) Finke stated that the Commission reviewed a concept plan for this project on the subject site earlier this year. He identified the subject site location and noted that the proposed development would contain commercial uses south of Meander and residential uses north of Meander. He stated that the applicant has requested that the twinhome residential products be allowed for lodging/short-term rental use. He noted that a PUD is being requested in order to 2 allow for flexibility in the development. He reviewed surrounding land uses. He provided details on access for both the commercial and residential development components and reviewed renderings provided by the applicant. He first focused on the commercial portion of the development which has an underlying zoning of Commercial Highway. He compared the standards of that zoning district to what is proposed under the PUD. He stated that the Fire Department requested a secondary emergency access, which would not need to be a full access, and noted that an extra wide and well-constructed trail would be proposed to allow access in the scenario that the primary access could not be used by emergency vehicles during an emergency. He reviewed details related to parking noting the options provided by the applicant to address larger events where more parking may be needed such as valet parking and shuttle service. He moved to the residential portion of the development, which is currently zoned Rural Reserve, therefore he provided both the R-1 and R-2 standards for comparison to the proposal requests. He stated that the four units proposed would equate to about 3.5 units per acre. He reviewed the flexibility requested related to wetland buffers, noting that less buffer is requested north of Meander in return for more buffer provided south of Meander. He reviewed architectural details noting that the application would propose more wood and metal material than typically allowed in the zoning district. He also provided architectural details for the residential twinhomes. He stated that in aggregate the applicant would propose more buffer than required but through more averaging than would generally be allowed. He stated that the landscaping plan was provided in the packet and noted that the internal portion of the parking lot would be proposed to have five percent landscaping while the Code would require eight percent. He noted that the applicant has provided more landscaping around the site to offset that reduction. Jacob asked if there is an ordinance on short-term rentals. Finke replied that the City does not regulate rentals, long or short term. He noted that under the residential districts, rentals ought to occur to only one family at a time. He stated that is why these units would be proposed as lodging to allow for multiple parties to occupy the rentals that may be involved in the events. Popp asked if there is a fence proposed for the daycare. Finke replied that the plans show a fence. Popp referenced another daycare/school in Medina which seems to be closer to the roadway than what is proposed in this case. Finke replied that the structure is closer to the roadway in that scenario, noting that the fence is on the property line in that case which is shown in this case as well. He noted that the fence in that case was required to be reinforced as part of the franchise agreement. Popp stated that he would be interested in that additional barrier requirement. He recognized that it is not required under Code but asked if it could be required under the PUD. Finke confirmed that could be a condition added through the PUD. Jacob referenced the larger event parking and noted that there are still the same number of stalls, whether they are valet parked or self-parked and asked how that would provide additional parking. 3 Finke commented that shuttling could be used, and valet can be parked more tightly, using driving lanes as less circulation is needed. He noted that the applicant can provide more details. Popp commented that there appears to be ten parking stalls for the twinhomes and asked what the minimum parking would be. Finke replied that if treated as residential units, two stalls per unit would be required. He noted that under R-3 or R-4, two parking stalls would be required per unit with an additional .25 stall per unit for guests. He confirmed that the parking proposed would exceed both those requirements. Ahmed asked the management structure for the short-term rentals. He also asked for details on the transparent structure on the residential development. Nielsen asked if handicap stalls would be required for the residential units if they are to be used for lodging. Finke stated that he did not have the answer for that question but could look into that. Rhem invited the developer to come forward. Chris Peterson, applicant, noted that he lives about 400 feet from the northeastern corner of the development. He stated that they submitted the concept plan late last year and after receiving feedback from the commissions and City Council as well as other entities such as the watershed, they have been working with City staff to incorporate that feedback. He believed that their proposed development would add considerable value to residents and businesses while meeting goals within the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that two thirds of the site is occupied by wetlands and they chose to take advantage of that by incorporating unique design elements and flexibility through the PUD requested. He stated that their requested development meets all nine criteria required for the PUD and provided an overview. He stated that the development would not be possible if likely held to the strict zoning requirements of the City, noting that the PUD allows them the creative flexibility to design something that will draw families from this community and beyond, while creating jobs, providing commercial and recreational opportunities, and protecting the rural character of the community. He stated that he chose to try to develop the property because he lives in the area and has worked in the area most of his life. He believed that these are amenities that people in the community are looking for. He commented that the residential units would be collectively managed by an HOA. He stated that the transparent structures are not yet set in stone as they may be cost prohibitive but noted that the intention was to provide a space where people could look out on the wetlands. He stated that the residential units would be built at grade and therefore would be accessible to elderly and handicap and therefore the driveway would be the most accessible location for parking. He stated that two bedrooms would be provided on the main floor with additional bedrooms on other floors. Piper asked if elevators would be considered to make the units fully accessible. Peterson stated that they would not put in elevators, as two bedrooms would be available on the main level for those that may not be able to traverse stairs. Piper asked if each residential unit would be individually owned and part of the HOA. 4 Peterson replied that the units would be collectively owned and managed. He noted that the financing and structure of ownership has not yet been finalized. Popp asked if the residential units would be 1,800 square feet with three floors. Peterson replied that currently the plan is for three floors with the atrium. He stated that their intent is to encourage looking away and towards the wetland. He stated that the venue location was chosen in order to be as far from residential as possible. He stated that if the third story is added, it would be partially enclosed. Popp asked if the units are shown perpendicular in order to take advantage of the wetland views. Peterson replied that they are taking advantage of the topography while also maximizing the wetland views. Popp commented that if the homes were not at an angle, it could perhaps better utilize the area and provide more of a setback but recognized that would lose the intent to maximize the wetland views. Peterson noted that they have proposed a split-level fence to keep people in the lower level out of the wetland. Piper asked the number of people that would be allowed under Fire Code for the event venue. Peterson stated that is unclear but would exceed the number that they would propose the average they would propose of 300 people for large events. Piper asked if there would be a kitchen and catering capacity within the building. Peterson confirmed that would be included in the venue, noting that the kitchen would be proposed to be 1,300 square feet in-order to accommodate two different events at the same time. Piper commented that she does see a dilemma in a venue that accommodates 300 people with only 230 parking stalls. Peterson explained that when going to events, most people tend to carpool or utilize Uber or Lyft. He stated that the daycare parking could be used for evening and weekend events. He stated that valet parking would also increase the density of the parking area as regular circulation would not be needed. He stated that Loram has also offered the use of their parking for weekend shuttles if needed. He noted that they chose to put the restaurant at the other corner in-order to keep the traffic for those two uses separate. Finke clarified the floor area of the residential units, noting that the 1,800 square foot is the footprint including the garage. It was clarified that the main level would be 1,800 square feet plus the garage. Nielsen believed the original concept had three residential structures and asked why it was increased to four. Peterson commented that given that the purpose would be for lodging and the symmetry they believed that four units would be a better fit. 5 Jacob referenced the basement of the venue and asked for details on the space marked for data storage. Peterson commented that there is 7,000 square feet and part of the reason for that space is to allow for storage of items without having to go outside. He stated that given the cost of the development they looked at potential revenue sources and data storage was an option that would also produce excess heat that could heat the conservatory in the winter. He stated that they do not have anything proposed at this time but wanted to ensure that could be a revenue option for the future. Popp asked if there has been consideration for EV charging in the parking lot. Peterson commented that he would like to consider that option, noting that he would also like to utilize solar energy panels on the roof. Popp commented that there is an extensive amount of wetland mitigation and asked if the tree removal would be unavoidable in-order to build the structure. Peterson commented that most of the trees on the site proposed for removal are not quality trees. He noted that they would be doing everything possible to replant trees and provide screening as many couple and wedding parties would want to take photos near the wetland. Nielsen referenced a letter about crypto mining rigs in the basement and asked the applicant to address the comments. Peterson provided more details on crypto and block chain technology and noted that this equipment would be similar to data servers used by a company. Nielsen asked if they should be concerned as to the statements in the letter and whether the statements in the narrative are misleading related to this type of use/technology. Peterson commented that he has not yet seen that letter but noted that they do intent to use this facility as an educational opportunity for these new technologies. He stated that he would be glad to provide more information on why they believe this would be a valuable component to this development. Piper asked if the data center would require a tremendous amount of electricity. Peterson commented that it would depend upon the size of the data center but noted that the solar panels would help to offset that energy use. He noted that the event venue would also not operate fully, every day. Rhem referenced the daycare and asked if there is an opportunity to adjust the orientation of the building and play area. Peterson replied that there are a few things that could be done to adjust the orientation. He noted that the building could be shrunk, or they could change the orientation. He stated that this orientation was chosen in order to provide a northwest view rather than a view of the highway. Nielsen stated that perhaps sliding the daycare to the north and east would provide more room to the north. It was noted that there are utilities on the east that would need to be avoided. 6 Peterson had the opportunity to review the letter and wanted to address the comments expressed. He stated that they do have an NFT project, which would be a very small portion of the event center. He stated that they could then educate the community and hold their own events on that topic once per year. Nielsen referenced the comments related to a fire hazard. Peterson replied that if the rigs were put into the building, they would work with the Fire Department and meet the required safety codes as they would not want to create an unsafe situation. Rhem referenced the twinhomes, noting that road abuts a private road and asked if there would be opportunity for connection. Peterson stated that he would love to and noted that he has spoken with the landowner, and he is not interested in allowing them to use the private drive. He noted that he also offered to pave the private road, but the landowner was still not interested at this time. Popp asked if the applicant would be open to a condition requiring a weight bearing fence for the daycare on the Meander side. Peterson stated that he would be in agreement with that condition as someone with young children himself. Rhem opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. George Stickney, Marsh Point Preserve, stated that he is developing the property to the north noting that all of those lots were created with a 50-foot buffer. He commented that he is selling high-end villas on his property and has already closed on eight of those properties. He stated that originally, he also planned a play area for children within the development, but the Bridgewater neighbors did not want to see that type of amenity because of concerns for noise. He stated that he used those funds that had been budgeted to work with neighbors to remove undesired trees on their private properties and plant higher value trees to provide more screening. He stated that he has worked hard to create a peaceful development overlooking Lake Medina. He believed that the three townhomes in the concept plan would be listed for individual sale. He commented that after a wedding or convention, it would be unlikely that one family would occupy one of the twinhomes for the night and instead envisioned that the twinhomes would become an afterparty location. He stated that he is not opposed to the overall development, or even the twinhomes if they were listed for sale but is opposed to the concept of allowing the twinhomes to be rented by visitors of the event center. Nielsen stated that perhaps Stickney should offer to purchase that residential property. Stickney stated that he is not opposed to the twinhomes being listed for sale as the original proposal stated. He stated that if the twinhomes remain as party houses for the event venue he will fill the Council Chambers with residents opposed to this request at the City Council meeting. Emma Schifferle, 4115 Cavanaugh Drive, stated that she wrote the letter that was discussed tonight. She stated that they would face where the villas are proposed. She stated that overall, she opposes the entire project. She stated that she works in commercial real estate and is a third-year law student. She stated that she reviewed the application in attempt to find 7 out why these elements are proposed. She stated that crypto was not mentioned in the notice and therefore the request is misleading. Jacob asked if there are any ordinances that govern the legal enforcement of issues that arise from that type of use. Finke replied that it would be handled through the nuisance ordinance. Piper asked if the developer would move forward if the twinhomes were not allowed to be built. Jacob asked if the northern development is necessary to support the southern development. Peterson replied that it is an amenity to the use on the south side of the street. Finke commented that from a zoning perspective there is flexibility in a PUD to accommodate different uses. He stated that hotels are allowed in the CH district and therefore it could be allowed to have some type of lodging within the commercial portion of the site. He stated that if desired, the Commission could allow for that type of use within the commercial area and the applicant could then provide updated plans to be reviewed as the review process moves forward. Nielsen asked whether there would be interest to change the daycare use to a hotel. Peterson replied that he had thought of it, but the site is small. They would consider options if necessary. Finke stated that staff had discussions about the likelihood that if the event center were successful a hotel use would typically follow, if not on this site, somewhere else. He stated that this site could not accommodate a substantial amount of lodging on the south side. He stated that a similar number of bedrooms to what was proposed on the north side could most likely be accommodated on the south side, but the daycare could not be a hotel because of the lack of parking. Nielsen stated that she loves the idea of the whole development. She stated that she struggles with the portion to the north and would prefer to see three units sold as single-family homes rather than used as lodging. She stated that reducing from four units to three units would also provide more space for buffers. She stated that she would also agree with some type of lodging on the southern side. Popp commented that this is an innovative design and Medina is lucky to have this type of proposal to consider. He believed that the PUD makes sense as this is a unique concept. He liked the design highlighting the natural resources. He stated that the northern lot is crowded which creates the setback issues. He also wanted to see the weight bearing fence for the daycare. He stated that he agrees with the conditions recommended by staff. He stated that he would prefer the northern lots be sold individually with a potential for lodging on the southern portion of the development. He stated that he is not opposed to the proposal, as Airbnb is designed to filter out the problem renters. He commented that is not a deal breaker to him, but he also wants to be considerate of the residents. He stated that perhaps the solution is to provide the lodging on the southern site, noting that would be the preferred option. Peterson stated that they could review that option with his architects. 8 Nielsen asked how the City could enforce that those units be sold as opposed to being rented. Finke replied that the homes could be owner occupied or rented, it’s the lodging that is required to be approved through the PUD. Ahmed stated that he supports the project as a whole but does have concern with the twinhomes being rented and the safety concern of having people that have been drinking walk across the road to those units. He appreciated the flexibility of the applicant in moving the lodging aspect to the south. Jacob commented that he likes the direction this is headed with the solution to place lodging on the south side. He stated that he would love to see three or four homes sold as single- family dwellings on the north as he is not comfortable with the VRBO concept for those units. Rhem commented that there was good discussion with the developer and the residents. He stated that he would be open to the concept of rentals on the northern portion but also understands the point of view that it is not desired by residents and appreciated the compromise solution proposed. Piper asked how a motion would be phrased that allows housing on the northern property but with the restrictions discussed that those units would need to be sold as single-family dwellings. Finke replied that in-order to construct four twinhomes, there would still need to be flexibility through a PUD and therefore a condition could be added requiring that those units be sold as single-family dwellings. He noted that the challenge would be in allowing lodging on the southern portion without seeing the design concept. He asked if the Commission would want to make that allowance without seeing the design. Jacob asked if the north side could be decoupled from the south in its own PUD. Finke replied that a PUD would allow for a mix of uses but noted that it would be cleaner to separate the two but still allow for those to move forward under the same review process. Piper asked if the Commission would want to table this until they could see how this would be laid out. Finke stated that the main question would be whether the Commission would want to see details on how lodging could be incorporated into the project on the southern side. He stated that if the Commission is not comfortable making a recommendation without seeing more, it would still be advantageous to present to Council in order to obtain any other direction and feedback as well. Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of the PUD subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following changes: residential units shall be sold for single-family use; square footage may be added to the building in the commercial portion of the site for lodging for the venue; and an added requirement for vehicle resistant fencing for the daycare. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Grajczyk) 8. BAPS Minneapolis Medina – 1400 Hamel Road – Amended Site Plan Review for Construction of Religious/Assembly Building (PID 1111823230003) 9 Finke stated that this would be an amendment to the site plan review which was approved about one year ago. He stated that during review of the site plan review last year, the City adopted a moratorium related to rooftop elements. He stated that the rooftop elements were not included in the original review in-order to move forward with utilities and grading and intended to come back after the City Council adopted regulations related to rooftop elements. He highlighted some minor site plan changes including a change to the sidewalk location and reorientation for the building to the south. He noted that the initial construction would be for the first building, with approval for the future buildings if constructed in the next five years. He displayed the proposed architecture with the rooftop elements noting that the rooftop elements would meet the required height limitations and therefore staff recommends approval. Rhem invited the applicant to speak. Asit Waghani, representing the applicant, stated that they had revised their building plans from what was originally submitted, since the City amended the building height requirements. Site layout changes were also made, as noted by Finke. Popp commented that the applicant has done a great job meeting the conditions and requirements specified. Rhem commented that the plan is well thought out to minimize visual impacts to neighbors. Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Jacob, to recommend approval of the amended site plan review with the conditions noted in the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Grajczyk) 9. Approval of the October 11, 2022 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the October 11, 2022, Planning Commission minutes with noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Grajczyk) 10. Adjourn Motion by Jacob, seconded by Piper, to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.