Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-13-2023 Planning Commission Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday June 13, 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, Cindy Piper, Matt Plec, 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 Albers provided an update on recent Council actions. Popp asked if the road funding would be equally split between the two cities. Albers confirmed that the cost would be split between Medina and Corcoran. Finke stated that the funding gap was split 50/50 between the two cities. He commented on the funds Corcoran had collected from development, along with grants and additional outside funding, noting that the remainder was split equally between the two cities. Popp asked if the headcount is increasing in the budget increases for the Police, or whether the increases in the budget are due to salary increases. Albers replied that there was an approval in the last budget to add additional officers but there has been a struggle with staffing therefore they are attempting to work through that in salary as well. Jacob asked if the City has plans to alert citizens to the increase in Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) as he has noticed the bugs on his tree. Albers noted that there are some beetles that look like EAB and is unsure if there are confirmed reports of EAB in Medina. Finke replied that there may have been a confirmed case in Medina but was not certain. Jacob stated that perhaps educational information could be distributed to residents on EAB. Albers agreed that perhaps there could be an article in the next newsletter. 2 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. Popp asked if the BAPS project had begun. Finke replied that BAPS anticipated to begin this fall. 6. Public Hearing – Preserve of Medina – East of Holy Name Dr, North of Lakeview Road – Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Plan and Preliminary Plat for 5 Lot Rural Subdivision Finke stated that the Commission previously reviewed a concept plan for this rural five lot subdivision. He stated that the site is approximately 73 acres, 50 of which would be buildable, and is zoned rural residential. He noted that a PUD would allow flexibility of the zoning standards in return for accomplishment of other desired City goals and/or amenities. He reviewed the adjacent land uses and displayed the proposed site plan. He noted that two lots would share a driveway while the other three lots would share a driveway with a plan to restore wetlands in the center of the site. He stated that the wetland creation/restoration would create a wetland bank. He noted that the PUD would allow flexibility in the arrangement of the lots around the wetland area. He noted that a standard rural residential layout was also provided by the applicant, showing that five lots could be created under standard zoning therefore the applicant is not proposing higher density than would be allowed. He noted that the wetlands would be placed into an outlot and deeded to the City. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of the wetland credits would be placed into a fund to use for ongoing maintenance. He stated that the applicant proposes to work with Gordon James as a home builder and example homes information was provided in the packet. He provided details on the primary and alternate septic sites for each of the lots noting that the sites for the northern lots were provided on the upland area on the other side of the wetlands. He noted that those systems could practically be built if necessary and they have discussed type four pretreatment systems for those lots as those could be located south of the wetlands. He noted that those plans have been reviewed by the Building Official. He noted that some alterations may be needed to the drain tile in order to create the wetland buffer area and the alterations would be monitored to ensure proper drainage. He provided additional details on the driveway plans and noted that staff will provide this presentation to the Park Commission the following week, noting the recommended trail connection to Holy Name to the east. He reviewed the flexibility requested under the PUD mainly related to lot size, and potentially lot width and/or depth as they work out the boundary of the wetlands, as well as the animal structure setback, and accessory dwelling units (ADU). Nielsen noted that 1.2 acres is proposed for lot five and asked if there is a reason to not add additional property to that lot rather than include the land in the outlot. Finke replied that there are portions of the site that lend themselves more easily to the wetland restoration and the area in the center is where a large amount of the wetlands are being created. Nielsen asked if the wetlands could be on the private property owner’s land. 3 Finke replied that the Corps of Engineers pushed hard to have the created wetlands outside of private property in order to improve long term enforcement of violations into the buffer areas. He stated that it was a high priority to have the created wetlands in an outlot. Ahmed asked and received confirmation that there are five home sites proposed on the property and asked for details on Outlot A. Finke replied that Outlot A would encompass the wetlands being restored and created, along with the buffers. Jacob asked how the wetland bank would be administered. Finke replied that the bank would need to be registered with the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and all transactions would go through that entity. Jacob asked if the ADUs and animal structures could be overridden by HOA regulations. Finke replied that could be presumable but many times those restrictions are put in by the developer and because the developer is requesting that flexibility it would suggest that there will not be such restrictions. Jacob noted about a ten-foot difference between the lowland and highland and asked if there would be any chance a lot could be increased in elevation beyond that. He noted the nearby residents in Plymouth could be impacted if elevations are raised significantly. Finke stated that there has not been mention of that but that could be answered by the applicant. Popp commented that four of the five lots do not meet the contiguous soils requirement as proposed and asked how many of the lots would meet the requirement if the wetland restoration and placement into Outlot A were not done. Finke replied that the base density plan showed that it would be possible to layout five lots with contiguous suitable soils before the creation of the wetlands. Popp asked the perspective or reasoning why the current ADU is limited in nature. Finke replied that the limitations for ADUs was to ensure that the ADU was clearly an accessory use to the primary home. He noted that the 2,500 square feet as proposed would be above grade and stated that the applicant could provide additional clarification on whether that square footage would include a walkout level or whether there would be plans for a basement in addition to the above grade area. Nielsen stated that she would prefer for an ADU to follow the conditional use permit (CUP) process and asked why the City would want to take control of that through administrative review. Finke replied that the review criteria and conditions are fairly administrative and there is not a lot of discretion. He acknowledged that additional conditions could be added through a CUP, but the criteria are generally yes or no for an ADU. 4 Nielsen referenced lot A which has 1.2 acres of buildable area and asked if an ADU could be placed on that lot as proposed. Finke clarified that the lot would be 3.5 acres with 1.2 acres of suitable soil. He confirmed that if approved as presented an ADU could be allowed, even if that were to follow the typical CUP process. Nielsen asked if sewer and water were to come from the north in the future, could those lots be subdivided. Finke replied that would be subject to the City’s land use and zoning regulations which would require the reguiding of the property for sewer and water, low density. He stated that practically, given the value that will be invested to develop these lots as rural residential, it would be extremely unlikely that redevelopment would be proposed in the following decades. He stated that a rural development, or PUD as proposed, would make sewer and water much less likely. Rhem invited the applicant to speak. Tim Boser, applicant, stated that they are working with Stantek on the wetland restoration project as that firm has experience in that area. He anticipated a three-to-five-year process. He explained that they are not 100 percent certain where the wetland buffer will ultimately fall which is why they are asking for flexibility on the lot size/width. He stated that Stantek is fairly confident in the line placement, but that would be finalized later this summer/fall and would be certified through final plat. He stated that while they are hoping to move forward with the final plat for the homes later this year, the wetland process would take longer. He noted that once that is completed, in about five years, the land would be dedicated to the City or Watershed District. He noted that they would also fund the maintenance for the next ten years. Nielsen asked if the applicant agrees to the conditions recommended by staff. Boser replied that generally yes, but they would like to get to 2,500 square feet for the ADU. He explained that they are thinking more of a pool house/guest house rather than a traditional ADU. He stated that they are comfortable with a total square footage of 2,500, explaining that they are not thinking of 2,500 in addition to a basement. Jacob asked if there is anticipation of a change in elevation for the lots. Mark Gronberg, project engineer, commented that the homes would need to be two feet above the low water elevation and therefore there would be fill on some lots to meet that requirement. Jacob asked the anticipated change in elevation. Gronberg replied that those units would most likely be walkout and anticipated six to seven feet. Popp referenced the animal structure setback and asked if 150 feet on the eastern side would be amenable to ensure proper setback from the Plymouth properties. Boser referenced lot three and the distance between Outlot A, which is a bit narrow and could force an animal setback further south therefore the flexibility was requested for that area. He 5 stated that the boundary between the properties and Plymouth is heavily wooded and therefore it would be unlikely that the Plymouth lots could see into these lots. Rhem opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Suzie Sween commented that she lives directly adjacent to the property and believes that this is a wonderful plan. She hoped that the City would support this plan. She noted an area near the tennis courts and developed stormwater ponds and stated that the ponds have not been maintained. She stated that there is spillover on the property that impacts the properties in that area. She believed that should be addressed between the cities, although separate from this development. She commented that she would agree with the alignment of the driveways as proposed or changing the alignment to match Lakeview. She asked that there be some type of buffer for the road/driveway which could be done through a berm or trees. Trenda Boyam, 2582 Holy Name Drive, commented that she also supports the plan noting that it was refreshing to see that there are only five homes proposed. She advocated for the wetland restoration and would prefer that to the option mentioned by the Commission to have increased lot sizes in lieu of the wetland creation. She stated that she values wetlands and likes that there would be long-term oversight of the management of the wetlands. Tom Medcalf, 2165 Holy Name Drive, asked if there could be more description of the wetlands in terms of surface water, marsh and the amount of soil that would be moved. He asked how the work would impact the area under construction and whether there would be treatment of the water discharged into Holy Name Lake. Boser commented that there is not much grading in the wetland area as that is not allowed. He stated that there is a ridge between the two wetlands that may be scraped a few feet. He stated that will be known once those plans are approved. He stated that the Watershed District supports this project because there will be a conversion from farmland to wetland, as the discharged from farmland is much worse. He noted that most of the water will filter down and only under very heavy conditions would water flow to Holy Name Lake. He noted that they would also be required to install plantings and would ensure everything is established prior to passing it to the City. Finke stated that the Watershed District has been a partner throughout this process as they have been working on this over the past year. He stated that this will have many benefits above just the conversion from agriculture. He noted that these elements would be above and beyond what would be provided through standard development. Nielsen asked for clarification on the road, as it was her understanding that the road had been shifted to the south. Boser confirmed that the road is currently proposed along the southern edge of the property. He noted that it is not really a road but a private driveway. He stated that they would prefer not to move that driveway to the north as it would conflict with the wetland area. He stated that if it were aligned with Lakeview, people may think it is a road rather than a private driveway. Rhem asked if there would be concern with placing a berm or trees along the driveway to provide a buffer for the neighbor. Boser replied that he would not be opposed if there were room. Additional information was provided on the distance of the northern driveway from the property line. 6 Julie Rothstein, 3615 Alvarado North, asked if there is anticipated timing for the project. Boser provided details on the anticipated timing for the homes and wetland work. Rhem closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Jacob stated that he is generally supportive of the project and staff recommendations. Piper echoed her support and thanked the applicant for preserving the rural character of Medina. Popp stated that he is very supportive and noted that the net density is still within the rural residential allowance. He found it important to know that the reason for the flexibility was the additional wetland creation. He referenced the requested animal structure setback and believed that to be warranted. He stated that related to the ADU perhaps the 2,500 square feet is clarified to be the total size rather than above ground. Ahmed commented that he also supports the plan as proposed and is happy to see the support of the neighbors. Plec thanked the neighbors for coming forward and supporting the project. He stated that he also supports the project. Nielsen also applauded the project, noting that she is a neighbor on Lakeview. She referenced the animal structure setback and noted that she would agree to reduce the setback internally but would prefer the 150-foot setback remain externally. She stated that 2,500 for an ADU seems large as that is larger than her current home. She understood that these will be large homes but would prefer the normal ADU regulations apply. She noted that she would support administrative review of the ADUs. Rhem echoed the comments of the Commission thus far, noting that he appreciates the efforts towards the wetlands and ecological impact that will have. He agreed that animal setbacks should be limited to internal setbacks. He also supported that 2,500 square feet be the total size rather than above ground size for the ADU. Finke provided additional clarification on habitable square feet for an ADU, noting that when those other areas are factored in, an ADU can come close to 2,500 square feet. He confirmed that this would be a total square footage of 2,500 rather than habitable square footage. Rhem asked if the ADU would still be governed by the 40 percent rule. Finke confirmed that as proposed it would be 40 percent of the floor area of the principal structure, or 2,500 square feet. He noted that neither of those calculations could be exceeded. Nielsen commented that she does not care about the number of bedrooms for the ADUs. Finke stated that the original regulation limited the number of bedrooms in order to limit intensity should the ADU be rented. Rhem stated that he did not have a problem with three bedrooms as the total size would be limited. 7 Nielsen stated that hopefully the issue of rentals would be addressed by the HOA. Popp stated that he also shared the concerns of Nielsen as this would essentially create two homes on one lot, with the ADU allowed to be 2,500 square feet and that is larger than his home as well. He noted that after hearing the input tonight he is comfortable. Nielsen asked if the Commission is comfortable with the reduced animal setback internally and confirmed the consensus of the Commission. Piper asked who would choose to make an HOA on this property, whether it would be the developer or the eventual property owners. Finke replied that the applicant could provide input on their intention of an HOA. He commented that there would be limited need for an HOA on this property. He noted that the set of owners could figure out the details of the shared driveways themselves. Boser stated that given the size, with five lots, they do not have the intention to create or force an HOA. He stated that if the homeowners decided to have an HOA, they could. He stated that other than the shared driveways there are not common elements. He stated that they would have development covenants that would address the shared driveways and design standards. Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Popp, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development General Plan and Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1) 2,500 square feet or 40% of principal ADU; 2) three-bedroom ADU; 3) 50-foot animal structure setback interior only. Motion carries unanimously. 7. Reflections Dental – 872 Highway 55 – Site Plan Review for Redevelopment Dion presented a request for a site plan review for the property at 872 Highway 55 for Reflections Dental. She stated that the proposal would be 7,000 square feet including the dental office space use while the multi-tenant area could be occupied by other users. She stated that this would be a redevelopment project and the property is guided commercial, and zoned commercial highway. She stated that the property does have allowable uses based on the allowable parking. She stated that given the parking needs of the dental office, there would be limitations on the other users that could come into the other tenant spaces. She noted that the site meets dimensional standards, setbacks, parking, hardcover standards, and is under the maximum allowed height. She compared the current layout of the site to the proposed site plan and highlighted the differences. She provided details on the proposed design and architectural materials. She stated that staff has a concern with the modulation on the north side of the building as the requirement would not be met as proposed. She noted that staff recommends approval with a number of conditions as listed. Jacob commented that there is talk of potentially connecting to the cul-de-sac behind the building and asked if thought has been given to providing that connection at this time. Dion replied that there are no plans at this time, although there are long-term hopes to do something like that. She noted that access easements would be needed in order to go through the McDonalds property. She noted that they did plan for that connection should it be possible in the future. She explained that McDonald’s owns the property between the subject property and the cul-de-sac and also noted the grade change between the properties. Jacob asked the percentage of space the dental office would occupy in the building. 8 Dion noted that could be answered by the applicant. Ahmed stated that people are traveling at high speeds on Highway 55, and he would be concerned with traffic trying to access or leave the site. He stated that if the cul-de-sac could be feasible that would provide a safer access to the site. Rhem invited the applicant to speak. Mark Fuller, representing the applicant, stated that they did update their plans to address the concerns related to modulation. He stated that they also have accommodated their plans to provide the connection to the cul-de-sac, should that become feasible in the future. He also provided more options that could be available to provide connection to Clydesdale in the future, should that become feasible. Nielsen asked if McDonald’s has been approached in attempt to purchase that land that would provide connection to the cul-de-sac. Fuller replied that he was unsure if the applicant had done so. Jacob asked how much land would be required to make the connection. Plec noted that an easement could be purchased in order to provide that connection as well and provided estimated dimensions on what would be necessary. Rhem opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, stated that he has the lots listed at Rolling Greens located at Pinto and 116 and asked if the company has considered purchasing one of those lots as they could accommodate a 10,000 square foot building with private parking. Fuller replied that he thought the applicant looked at that site, but has moved ahead with the subject property instead. Rhem closed the public hearing at 8:37. Ahmed expressed concern with access from Highway 55 and would prefer a solution that would have access from Clydesdale. Plec stated that he supports the development. Nielsen asked if there was consideration to flip flop the building and parking lot, placing the building on the non-55 side of the property. Fuller replied that was considered but noted that the setbacks are more constraining in that area in addition with the slope that exists for the drainage pond. He commented that there was unpermitted work done on this site and this proposed development would reduce the impervious surface on the site by about 873 feet. Nielsen commented that this is a great design, and she looks forward to this development. Popp commented that this looks great. 9 Piper commented on the lack of parking at Peg’s on a Sunday morning and wanted to ensure that parking would not spill onto this site. Fuller recognized the potential relationship and interaction between this site and Peg’s. He hoped that his client and Peg’s would be good neighbors. Nielsen commented that the dental office would not be open on Sunday so shared parking might not be an issue. Jacob stated that he would love to see the access developed from the cul-de-sac. Rhem appreciated that the modulation was already adjusted. He stated that while he does not love the Highway 55 access, he understands that is the only option at this time and appreciated that the applicant has planned for a connection in the future. Fuller stated that if the Council and Commission could help to encourage the Clydesdale connection, he would appreciate that as well. Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Motion carries unanimously. 8. Public Hearing – Alexander Petrashov – 2382 Highway 55 – Rezoning from Commercial-Highway (CH) to Business (B) District Dion stated that the applicant is requesting a rezoning from commercial highway to business in order to relocate their business from Osseo. She reviewed the adjacent site uses and noted that the current site is occupied with a motel. She stated that this change in zoning would not impact the ability for the motel to remain on the site. She noted that the applicant intends to redevelop the site, but if that does not happen right away, the motel would continue to be a conforming use. She stated that the subject site is 3.28 acres which meets the minimum lot size as well as dimensional standards. Piper asked what the structure to the right is. It was clarified to be senior housing. Jacob asked if the applicant currently owns the site. Plec asked if the motel is currently functioning as a motel. Alexander Petrashov, applicant, responded that the motel is occupied. Piper asked if the clients at the motel rent for longer periods of time. Petrashov stated that the motel rooms rented as extended stays. Rhem asked why this piece is zoned differently than the surrounding parcels. Dion replied that many properties were rezoned as part of the Comprehensive Plan implementation and this property should have been rezoned as well but was not. Nielsen asked if the motel would be demolished when the new structures are constructed. Petrashov stated that the motel would need to be demolished for them to construct their shop. 10 Rhem invited the applicant to speak. Petrashov stated that they are happy to be moving from Osseo to Medina. Popp asked the number of employees the business has during the busy season. Petrashov estimated 15 to 20 employees. Popp asked if there would be a possibility to bring more local employment or whether the same staff would move with the business. Petrashov replied that they feel that Medina would be a better fit for the business and anticipated that his employees would come with the business. Jacob asked what would trigger the construction on this site. Petrashov reviewed the anticipated timeline. Rhem opened the public hearing at 8:53 p.m. No comments. Rhem closed the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. Jacob commented that he likes the project and supports the recommendations. Piper agreed. Popp commented that this is a strong development plan that aligns with the surrounding development. Nielsen, Plec, and Ahmed also expressed support. Rhem agreed that it makes sense to clear up the zoning discrepancy regardless of the following project. Motion by Piper, seconded by Plec, to recommend approval of the rezoning subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Motion carries unanimously. 9. Public Hearing – School Lake Nature Preserve 3rd Addition – 2600 Parkview Drive – Planned Unit Development General Plan and Preliminary/Final Plat to Divide Existing Lot into a Lot and an Outlot Finke presented a request to amend the School Lake Nature Preserve Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Plat. He explained that this would not create new lots but would place the English garden into its own outlot for preservation. He stated that the owners home is still the only home on the properties at this time. He stated that the applicant would like to split the English garden off onto an outlot to make the remainder of that lot more attractive to buyers as there may be concern with maintaining the gardens. He acknowledged that it is not common to create an outlot that is not open space, and the applicant addresses that through the PUD. He noted that the outlot would be owned by Mr. Marks and could be conveyed to another owner in the future. He stated that there are two accessory buildings, a shed and gazebo, which would not typically be allowed on an outlot, but that could also be addressed 11 through the PUD. He stated that staff recommends approval to reorient the lots in this way and of the plat. Nielsen asked if there were previous issues with a trail for this project. Finke replied that there were multiple issues with trails through the review process. He noted that various trail easements were dedicated as part of the project, along with creation of a trailhead, noting that work is still outstanding. He noted that the City would be in charge of creating those trails in the future. Jacob asked what would happen to the outlot if the change were not approved. Finke replied that the garden is currently part of the 2600 lot. He noted that if this were not approved, the garden would remain as part of the lot. He stated that there was concern with the outlot being orphaned in the future and therefore it can be conveyed to another person. Piper asked if there has been discussion of having another lot. Finke replied that there has not been any discussion of additional lots. He noted that there are a series of outlots in this development that has conservation area and maintenance obligations. He recognized that there would be more intense maintenance obligations for the garden. Kent Williams, 1632 Homestead Trail, spoke in representation of the applicant. He stated that if the huge worldclass English garden is attached to a property, with its maintenance obligations, that shrinks the pool of interested buyers. He stated that whoever owns the garden would have to be a member of the HOA to ensure vested interest in the maintenance of the property. Nielsen asked if there is concern that the outlot could become orphaned. Williams replied that it will become part of the estate. Nielsen asked if there has been thought given to donating the garden to another entity. Williams commented that the maintenance obligations are around $100,000 a year for the garden. Rhem opened the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. No comments. Rhem closed the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. Nielsen commented that she does have concern that the garden could be orphaned but would be fine moving forward. Piper recognized the age of the applicant and stated that this would be a way for him to get out from under the economics of this. She stated that she could see this going foul and being ignored. She asked if the home would provide access to the garden and whether the addition of the garden would make his home less attractive on the market. 12 Williams stated that ultimately he is not optimistic that someone would want to take that garden on. He noted that in that case the garden would become overgrown and tilled and would then become open space. Finke stated that if someone did not want to maintain the lot as a garden, there is no reason it could not be combined with an adjacent lot as it would not be labeled as conservation area. Motion by Piper, seconded by Jacob, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development General Plan and Preliminary/Final Plat with the conditions recommended by staff. Motion carries unanimously. 10. Approval of the April 11, 2023 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Rhem, seconded by Jacob, to approve the April 11, 2023, Planning Commission minutes with the noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. 11. Adjourn Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Ahmed, to adjourn the meeting at 9:13 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.