Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-14-2023 Planning Commission Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday March 14, 2023 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Rhem called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Adeel Ahmed, John Jacob, Beth Nielsen, Matt Plec, Justin Popp, and Braden Rhem. Absent: Planning Commissioner Cindy Piper. Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke. 2. Changes to Agenda No comments made. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings Finke provided an update on recent action and considerations of the Council, as well as upcoming road projects. 4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Nielsen volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 5. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. 6. Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Oppidan Investments – Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review for Development of Approximately 310,000 S.F. Warehouse/Office on Two Lots (PID 0411823140004) Finke briefly reviewed the process that this application has undergone thus far, which brings them to consideration of the rezoning, preliminary plat, and site plan review tonight for the proposed development of approximately 310,000 square feet of warehouse/office use. He noted that a rezoning would be necessary to bring the zoning into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan amendment that was completed. He noted that both business and business park would be appropriate, reviewing the differences between the two and noting that staff would recommend that the property be rezoned to business. He reviewed the preliminary plat noting that the application exceeds the minimum lot requirements. He stated that there are a series of improvements proposed relating to transportation, providing a brief overview. He noted that the Park Commission will be reviewing this application at its next meeting and while park land dedication is not desired, there are trail easements proposed. He stated that staff recommends approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. He provided additional clarification on where staff would recommend right-of- way dedication. 2 Jacob asked the width/dimension of the right-of-way. Finke stated that the outlot is 60 feet and additional right-of-way is proposed for the future roadway. He noted that 60 feet would be acceptable for roadway. Ahmed asked if the property to the north is under the same ownership. Finke replied that the current property owner owns the subject site, outlot, and property to the north. Ahmed asked if the City has a choice in accepting park land or trails. Finke confirmed that the City could accept ten percent of the buildable land of eight percent of the market value of the buildable land in lieu. Ahmed asked if the trail would be connected to something or stand alone. Finke provided details on the location of existing trails and the proposed trail alignment. He noted that this trail corridor does have high priority in the City plans, therefore staff believes it would be appropriate to construct this trail segment with the project. He moved to the site plan review reviewing details of building layout, architectural details, parking and proof of parking, and signage. He stated that staff recommends approval of the site plan review subject to the listed conditions. He suggested that the applicant be provided an opportunity to speak as well. Jacob recalled previous concern from adjacent neighbors related to noise mitigation. He asked if additional berming or other barriers would be added to the plan. Finke replied that there is a fair amount of topography change in that area. He stated that part of that discussion was also site orientation and noted that the development was shifted and the loading docks were moved internal as well. He noted that additional landscaping would be required to the east and north as specified in the staff report. He stated that berming may be difficult because of the topography, but additional grading and plantings could occur in what is now a wet area as that has been determined to be an incidental wetland. Popp referenced the zoning of business versus business park and asked if the examples provided are recently constructed. Finke replied that the businesses are not new but the rezoning to business is more recent. Popp noted the FDA zoning of some adjacent properties and asked if business park would be more appropriate in ensuring the FDA properties develop into residential in the future. He noted that perhaps adjacent zoning to business would tend to bring forward different land use proposals in the future, other than residential. Finke stated that when they look at the future use of adjacent property, they might consider the zoning of existing development in the area. He noted that the residential setback and other permitted uses are similar between business and business park and would not cause nonconformity. He stated that business would not prohibit the designation of residential property adjacent to the site. Popp referenced the windows, noting that it appears mostly the north and south sides were called out. He asked if the percentages mentioned are against a target. 3 Finke replied that there is no explicit number within the Code and reviewed the language within the Code that provides a fair amount of flexibility that allows the City to determine what is appropriate. Ahmed asked about the road improvements proposed. Finke reviewed the proposed road improvements. Jacob referenced the issue of signage and asked the criteria for a monument sign. Finke replied that City Code would allow for a dynamic display and reviewed the limitations of Code related to signage. He also provided details on coordinated signage. Rhem invited the applicant to speak. Peter Coyle, land use counsel for the applicant and landowner, stated that they have been before the Commission multiple times before tonight with different concepts and requests noting that the fundamental goal of the project has always been to bring forward a high quality industrial use that would be appropriate for this commercial/industrial corridor. He expressed appreciation for the patience and cooperation of staff throughout this lengthy process. He stated that all of the renderings have tried to depict what they saw coming with an industrial use, noting that the building has to fulfill the purpose of the tenant. He commented that they believe that they have presented an attractive project that would still meet the needs of a tenant. Jennifer Kaplan, project architect, commented on the experience that her firm has with industrial buildings and noted that Oppidan has been building quality buildings. She stated that in her opinion this is one of the best proposed. She provided more information comparing this architecture of the proposed project to recently completed projects in Ramsey and Chaska. Rhem opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. R.J. Berges, stated that he and his wife own approximately 20 acres to the east. He stated that because he does not entirely understand all the details, his lawyer has been in contact with Finke. He stated that their family support the Cates industrial park Oppidan project. He thanked Oppidan for listening to their comments at previous meetings, noting that they notice the changes that have been made to the plans in response. He asked if the approval of the plat is conditioned upon the entire tax parcel that constitutes dedication of Cates Ranch Road as public right-of-way. He stated that it is his understanding that the improved portion from Willow to just past the entrance to the development will be public street maintained by the City, the cost for improvement of that roadway will be paid by the developer without assessment to the other landowners served by the roadway, and the remainder of the right-of- way will continue to be privately maintained until a future date but the dedication is still occurring at this time. Finke commented that it is not clear as to what is being proposed to the extent of right-of-way east in the outlot. Mike Brandt, project engineer, stated that the intent of the right-of-way is to dedicate but recognized the confusion where they are straightening out Cates Ranch Road. He noted that they are identifying that as outlot and would place right-of-way within that area. He stated 4 that the intent is to dedicate the private road in a width of 60 feet east of the development at this time. Finke commented that it is the recommendation of staff that the first 560 feet be maintained by the owners of the industrial development rather than the City and would not be opened as a public street until some time in the future. He stated that the applicant agrees with that. Berges asked if the dedication of Cates Ranch Road would include a utility easement and whether the utilities would be stubbed along the road, with a future lift station that would allow his property to be served by sanitary sewer when that development occurs. He asked if water and other utilities would also be stubbed for future connection along Cates Ranch Road. Finke stated that utility rights would be included within the right-of-way for the future. He stated that water will be stubbed out at the end of Cates Ranch Drive, while sewer is not contemplated as the lift station would be off-site north on Willow Drive and is not constructed. He stated that the lift station would not serve this development. He stated that if the northern property were to be designated for development, staff would require that developer to extend utilities through the site. Berges referenced the single point of entrance onto Cates Ranch Drive while the plat shows two points of entry. He stated that he would prefer one entrance onto Cates Ranch Drive. He stated that drivers coming down Cates Ranch Drive for this development may overshoot the entrance and asked if there would be some type of cul-de-sac or turnaround at the end. Finke replied that nothing has been included but that is good input. He stated that perhaps they can use design and signage to minimize that occurrence. Berges commented that many of the drawings and renderings reference Cates Ranch Road, while currently it is called Cates Ranch Drive and asked if there are plans to change the name. Finke replied that there are no plans to change the name of the roadway. Rhem closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Ahmed referenced an egress and asked if that is required noting that seems an odd place for a driveway. Finke replied that the alternative would be to share the truck court, which could be problematic. He stated that the intent is to have a main entrance for employee vehicles and another for the truck court users. Brandt confirmed that they would like to keep truck and regular vehicle traffic separate. He stated that this concept also provides multiple access points for fire and public safety. Nielsen stated that there are a lot of conditions proposed by staff and asked if the applicant agrees. Coyle replied that they accept the conditions as proposed. 5 Nielsen stated that she has been present throughout this process and is pleased with the project proposed today. She thanked the applicant for the changes that have been made and is also pleased with the architectural detail as presented tonight. Plec stated that while he is new to the Commission, he did read through the information from the last meetings, and it seems that this project has come a long way. He stated that this looks like a high finish industrial park and does not look like a typical distribution dock where there would be a ton of traffic coming and going. He stated that he has reviewed recently constructed projects in other communities and this appears to be top notch. Popp echoed the comments of the previous members. He commented that the presentation tonight related to architecture was helpful and eased many of his concerns. He stated that he is much more comfortable now and this will establish the standard going forward. He stated that he supports the design and is also supportive of the business zoning. Finke commented that most of the standards between business and business park are the same. He noted that while business would allow an additional story for the building, that is not proposed in this case. He noted that the setbacks proposed would also meet the standards of both districts. Jacob appreciated the Cates family and its team for incorporating all the feedback to present a great project. He asked if an additional condition would be needed related to the maintenance of the first 560 feet of the roadway. He also believed that signage requirements should be incorporated into the conditions as well. Finke stated that those items can be included in the motion tonight and staff could draft language for the conditions. Rhem appreciated the developer and project owner for incorporating the feedback received throughout the project to produce a project that will set a good standard. Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Jacob, to recommend approval with the conditions noted in the staff report and the additional condition that signage meets relevant Code requirements, and additional detail related to maintenance of Cates Ranch Drive prior to dedication to the City. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper) 7. Approval of the January 10, 2023 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Jacob, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the January 10, 2023, Planning Commission minutes with changes. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper) 8. Adjourn Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Jacob, to adjourn the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Piper)