HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-08-2010Medina Planning Commission June 8, 2010 Meeting Minutes
CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, Robin Reid, John Anderson, Kathleen
Martin, Kent Williams, and Beth Nielsen.
Absent: none
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council proceedings
R. Reid presented City Council update.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke explained the upcoming rezoning of properties and the Lennar project in July.
5. Approval of May 11, 2010 Concurrent Planning Commission and Park Commission
meeting minutes
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Anderson to approve the May 11, 2010 minutes with
recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None)
6. Approval of May 11, 2010 Planning Commission minutes
Motion by Anderson, seconded by R. Reid to approve the May 11, 2010 minutes with
recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None)
7. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of the City Code of Ordinance —
Pertaining to the timing of growth and development to be served by city utilities
1
Medina Planning Commission June 8, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Finke reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment. He explained it requires a property
owner to apply for a PUD to request flexibility of the standards. Finke said to request
flexibility from standards is typical of a PUD. He said the ordinance has criteria with three
stages to qualify. Properties would have to meet certain benchmarks in order to move
forward and it could be very subjective. He said there is a lot of discretion by the Planning
Commission and City Council when reviewing the criteria.
Finke said the ordinance is a public hearing and he received one call. The caller suggested
the City look at tax base rather than jobs and employment, or possibly all of them when
looking at properties to qualify. The caller also stressed the importance of allowing property
owners to go before the Planning Commission and City Council to be informed of what they
think the cost would be to go through the process to get a yes/no answer.
R. Reid asked for clarification of the tax base point made. Nolan said if a property is
increasing its value by developing, it is creating additional tax dollars for the City. Williams
said the process allows the increased tax base to come sooner. Martin said tax value increase
wouldn't really take effect for two years. Nolan said he thinks the City assumes the sites will
be developed at some point. He doesn't think it is an objective of the City's to build as fast
as possible to increase tax base. Williams provided an example of a Target coming into the
City, rather than it being a vacant lot.
Public Hearing opened at 7:24 p.m.
No public comment.
Public Hearing closed at 7:25 p.m.
Williams said he liked the d5 comment on page two of the ordinance. It suggested, instead
of assigning points, to require all crucial factors be achieved and a majority of the relevant
primary factors be achieved. He said he doesn't like the point system since it allows for too
much debate with an applicant.
Finke said requiring applicants to meet certain crucial factors was how the ordinance was
written originally, rather than the point system. He suggested strengthening the language and
setting some sort of benchmark.
R. Reid said since the decision will be subjective, she likes the point system. Williams said
his preference is not the point system. Nolan explained with the point system if a project
couldn't quite make the amount of points needed to jump ahead, the developer/land owner
could donate land or money to the City's park system to meet a different objective and then
qualify if the City wanted the project to move forward. Martin said she is opposed to the
point system for all the points Williams had noted. She said Maple Grove has a third
category called "bonus points."
2
Medina Planning Commission June 8, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Martin said the point system is worth a try, but should incorporate the "bonus points" system.
R. Reid said it could be incorporated, but maybe not given the same amount of points/value.
Nielsen said, since the point system is subjective, couldn't the City give more points.
Williams and Martin raised concern that litigators can get real creative. Williams said the
more specific the point system regulations are, the more ammunition they could have to
argue. He doesn't like the point system and feels the more general the regulations are kept,
the better it is for the City. Nolan said the point system helps channel a project. Williams
said his understanding of the point system is "of how much the concept fulfills the point
system."
Nolan asked what kind of bonus could be gained by the bonus point system. The
Commission discussed the number of points and then Anderson suggested not providing a set
number of points for a bonus. The Commission concluded an applicant could receive "up to"
five bonus points.
The Commission discussed how to prioritize architectural quality as a result of text within the
Comprehensive Plan.
Finke said he added factors from the Comprehensive Plan such as affordability and jobs.
Motion by Williams, Seconded by R. Reid to amend the ordinance by giving high quality
architecture and design ten points, and making it a primary factor. Motion failed 1-6.
(Against: Nolan, V. Reid, R. Reid, Anderson, Martin and Nielsen).
Motion by Martin, Seconded by Anderson to move up sustainability as a primary factor,
due to the stated objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Motion failed 2-5 (Against: Nolan,
V. Reid, R. Reid, Williams and Nielsen).
Motion Anderson, Seconded by Martin to adopt the ordinance as written, except add
language allowing up to five bonus points, revising language under Subd.4.(a) as
recommended, and revising language under Subd.4.(b).(4) utilize "may" rather than "would"
within each sentence. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None)
R. Reid stated every decision/motion of the Commission doesn't have to be unanimous.
8. City Council Meeting Schedule: Discussion of representation at Council meeting.
9. Adjourn: Motion by Anderson, seconded by Williams to adjourn at 8:43 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously. (Absent: none)
3