Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-10-2023 Planning Commission Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday January 10, 2023 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Rhem called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Adeel Ahmed, John Jacob, Matt Plec, Justin Popp, and Braden Rhem. Absent: Planning Commissioners Beth Nielsen and Cindy Piper. Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke 2. Changes to Agenda No comments made. 3. Introduction of Planning Commissioners The members of the Commission introduced themselves. 4. Update from City Council Proceedings Albers introduced himself and provided an update on the activity of the Council from its first meeting of the year at which Council appointments were made and a discussion was had with Representative Kristin Robbins. Popp asked if there is a timeline for a new fire station and when that would be necessary. Albers commented that timeline is not yet known and provided additional information on how the communities in this area are working together to establish a fire district with shared services that would operate in a more cost-effective manner. Popp asked if there are any concerns with current response times. Albers replied that Medina is currently served by four fire departments with excellent response times. Jacob asked what is driving the water treatment plant expansion. Albers replied that it would be in anticipation of future growth. 5. Representative at Next City Council Meeting Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Jacob volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 6. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. 2 7. 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 noted that the Commission reviewed this case in November and recommended approval. Plec excused himself from this discussion and vote to avoid a conflict of interest. Finke stated that this is predominantly a commercial development with residential development on the northern portion of the site. He stated that originally the lodging units were proposed to be on the northern portion of the site, but concern was raised, and it was determined that the lodging should be incorporated into the commercial development and the northern units should remain strictly residential. He stated that the applicant has updated their plans as such for review. He stated that the focus tonight will be on the architectural changes and incorporation of the lodging units into the event venue space. He stated that as proposed there would be 19 rooms within the lodging space. He also highlighted architectural elements that have been updated and improved since the last review. He noted that the twinhomes have been updated to be two story homes. He stated that the materials were updated on the event venue, increasing brick and tile. He noted that staff would suggest additional modulation for the event venue and the twinhomes. Jacob asked for details on signage. Finke replied that signage has not yet been requested and therefore the standard signage regulations would apply. Chris Pederson, applicant, stated that they are attempting to create a boutique development and therefore have not yet discussed signage but could consider a larger sign for the development on the upland area. He stated that he would prefer more signage on the actual buildings. He stated that the water feature would stand tall enough to have signage for the event space. He stated that most daycare users would not be deciding to stop because of signage and therefore building signage should be sufficient. He stated that the retail and restaurant would have visibility from Highway 55 and therefore building signage should be sufficient as well. He stated that it is not his intent to have large multi-tenant signage. He stated that it is their intent to provide enough signage to alert customers but have the overall development more lowkey and boutique. Finke noted that if desired, the Commission could direct staff and the applicant to work together to present a general plan for signage prior to the Council meeting. Ahmed referenced the townhomes and asked if those would be listed for sale. Pederson confirmed that they would sell those as single-family homes to individuals. He thanked the Commission for the pivot at the November meeting to suggest lodging on the commercial side as that is a key component for the development. He stated that having the lodging component enclosed within the event center would also address the previous concern of safety for those crossing Meander to reach the units on the northern portion of the development. He recognized the signage is important for a restaurant or retail user and noted that in terms of signage they want something on the building that would be visible and would blend with the overall aesthetic of the development. 3 Ahmed recognized that detailed signage at this point would be premature. Finke explained that the intent would be to discuss the allowable signage per frontage, noting that could be combined to have one larger sign rather than two smaller signs. He noted that they could also then discuss the building signage that would be allowed. He stated that there could be general signage requirements incorporated into the development agreement that would help to ensure the aesthetic of the development is carried through by individual users. Pederson commented that he would perhaps want a sign denoting the overall Meander Park and Boardwalk development that would fit with the rural character of the area. Jacob inquired about what vehicle-resistant fencing would entail. Finke replied that the alternative would be bollards. It was noted that securing and hardening of various locations has become common practice, so there is likely a standard for fencing intending to stand up to vehicles. Pederson commented that a daycare operator would have additional regulations they would have to meet in terms of safety, above the regulations of Medina. Finke noted that a public hearing was held in November, therefore a second public hearing is not required, and the meeting was not noticed as such. He stated that public input could still be accepted. No comments were made by the public. Popp commented that he supported much of the development proposed in November but was happy to see this compromise on the lodging. He stated that he also wanted to ensure that this pivot was still economically feasible from the perspective of the developer, which seems to be the case. He believed that all of the issues from November have been addressed and he is happy with the updates to the design. He stated that he does support the recommendation of staff for additional modulation. Jacob concurred with Popp’s comments. Ahmed had nothing new to add and wished the developer well. Rhem commented that he too would support additional modulation on the two-story addition to the event venue. Pederson provided additional details that will be on the event venue and twinhomes that he believes will provide modulation. He noted that the design of the twinhomes will be changing and stated that their desire was to receive approval for the footprint, two-stories, and number of units for the residential component. Motion by Popp, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval with the conditions noted in the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen and Piper; Recused: Plec) Plec rejoined the Commission. 4 8. 2023 Planning Commission Officer Elections a. Chair b. Vice Chair Finke opened the floor for nominations for the position of Chair for 2023. Popp asked if there was interest expressed from Nielsen or Piper on the positions. Finke replied that Nielsen stated that she is not interested in serving as Chair and suggested Rhem for the position. Motion by Popp, seconded by Ahmed, to elect Rhem as Chair. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen and Piper) Rhem opened the floor for nominations for the position of Vice Chair. Rhem nominated Popp. Motion by Rhem, seconded by Jacob, to elect Popp as Vice Chair. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen and Piper) 9. Approval of the November 9, 2022 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Jacob, seconded by Rhem, to approve the November 9, 2022, Planning Commission minutes with the noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen and Piper) 10. Questions/Discussion: “Land Use Regulation for Local Officials” Webinar Finke stated that the City encourages the Commission to alert staff if there are training opportunities they are interested in. He stated that this webinar was offered from the League of Minnesota Cities and provides general knowledge on the topic which can be helpful for Commission members. Rhem commented that the information is helpful and provides a refresher as well. Finke noted that planning cases typically fall into one of two categories: quasi-judicial or legislative and provided additional details on each category including the level of discretion each would have. 11. Adjourn Motion by Jacob, seconded by Rhem, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.