HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-10-2008CITY OF MEDINA
2052 COUNTY ROAD 24
MEDINA, MN 55340
AGENDA
MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEDINA CITY HALL
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of August 12, 2008 Planning Commission draft minutes.
6. Open Discussion Items: Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts
7. Future Meeting Information:
8. Adjourn
Posted in City Hall September 5, 2008
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Medina Planning Commissioners
FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning Director
DATE: September 9, 2008
RE: Planning Department Report and Updates
Update on Applications, Developments, Projects and Issues:
A) Rural Residential and Accessory Building Standards: City staff presented the Rural
Residential zoning district amendments and Accessory Building standards amendments at
the August 6th regular meeting. Considerable discussion took place on the RR district
standards, including the Animal Unit standards. Staff was directed to provide updated
revisions and research in other communities' ordinances and present back to the City
Council at the Sept. 16 regular meeting.
B) High Pointe Ridge 2nd Addition - Tim Druk and Mark Luetmer — Request for
preliminary plat to rearrange existing lot lines between 2920 and 2930 Parkview Drive
was approved by the City Council at the August 19th meeting.
C) Uptown Hamel Parking Analysis: planning staff presented a parking analysis report to
the city council at the August 19 regular meeting. No major directives were given to staff
by council; report was accepted as a general report or study to be reviewed or updated at a
later date.
D) Three Rivers Park District — Baker Golf & Ski Chalet — 2935 Parkview Dr.: The
application request for CUP to construct two 22' x 80' (1,760 sq. ft. ea) golf cart storage
buildings was approved by the city council at the Aug. 19th meeting.
E) Hennepin County Public Works —1600 Prairie Drive: The City Council considered the
Hennepin County PUD amendments to allow the installation of a wind turbine and civil
defense siren tower, at the September 2 regular meeting. After considerable discussion
and comments from county officials and neighboring property owners, the Council
elected to table the matter to the Sept. 16 meeting, with the understanding Mayor Crosby
and City Admin. Adams would meet with HC officials to discuss financial information
and examine potential pro -forma data on the wind turbine.
F) Three Rivers Park District — Baker Campground: requesting a CUP amendment to add
a shower building addition to existing shower/restroom facilities. Application was
deemed incomplete and will be scheduled for review at the October 14th PC meeting.
G) Private Recreation Zoning District The City Council received the recommendation
from the PC and considered for the first time the PREC zoning ordinance. After
comments from the public and discussion amongst staff and council, the matter was
tabled to the October 7th regular meeting.
Planning Dept. Update
Page 1 of 2 Planning Commission 2008
H) Wrangler's Restaurant& Bar — 32 Hamel Road — D.W. Holding, Inc. (Willis bros.)
submitted plans for a building permit of a new restaurant/bar inside the former
"Provenance" building in Uptown Hamel. Unfortunately, the plans identified a
kitchen/food prep expansion off the back of the building, which requires site plan review
(and possibly other) land use applications. Planning staff is working with the owners and
will have more information in future planning department updates.
2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan Update
i. We received the City of Greenfield's and City of Maple Plain's comprehensive plans for
review; staff is currently reviewing both documents.
ii. The 6-month time period for receiving reviews from the surrounding jurisdictions elapsed
on August 20, 2008. City staff is preparing the necessary revisions requested by the
Metropolitan Council (from the informal review letter dated June 176, 2008) and will be
requesting direction from the Council at the Sept. 16 workshop meeting.
Planning Dept. Update
Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission 2008
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT August 12, 2008 Meeting Minutes
CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
1. Call to Order: Chair Jeff Pederson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Jeff Pederson, Simons, Victoria Reid and Robin Reid, Nolan.
Absent: Litts and Verbick absent
Also Present: Planning Director Tim Benetti and Associate Planner Dusty Finke.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings
Weir updated the Commission regarding the following:
• Farmers Market
• Uptown Hamel
• Water/Sewer agreement with Corcoran
• Special Event permit ordinance
• Affordable Housing policy — largely incentive -based
• Rural Residential
• Luetmer/Druk rearrangement
4. Planning Department Report
Benetti updated the Commission on new applications that will be coming up in future months.
5. Approval of July 8, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes
Motion by Simons, seconded by V. Reid to approve the July 8th, 2008 minutes with changes as
noted. Motion carried unanimously (Absent: Verbick and Litts).
6. Hennepin County Public Works Facility -1600 Prairie Drive (PID 10-118-23-12-0003
and 10-118-23-11-0004) — Amendment to Planned Unit Development General Plan (No.
A16846) for the construction of a Wind Turbine tower and Civil Defense Siren tower
(Public Hearing Closed).
Benetti presented the staff report. He stated that Hennepin County had invited
Commissioners, Council members, staff, and any interested city residents to a tour to
Northfield to visit wind turbine locations in person. He described the site location. He stated
that the maximum distance to the tip of the blade would be 389 feet (1.5 MW) or 407 feet
(2.1 MW). The turbines would meet PCA nighttime noise standards at 623 feet (1.5) or 850
1
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT August 12, 2008 Meeting Minutes
feet (2.1). The site plan identified a 400 foot setback. If a 407 foot in height tower were
proposed, the setback would have to be increased to minimum of a 407 foot setback. He
stated that the Wind Analysis information which was originally in the PC packet had been
requested back by Hennepin County because some of the information should not have been
made public. Hennepin County has since provided a condensed version of the executive
summary, which may be made public and has been placed in the packet.
Benetti described regulations existing in the zoning ordinance which regulate smaller wind
turbines. He described different state regulations related to wind turbines. Benetti played
video recordings of the turbines at Northfield for those unable to attend the tour.
Public Hearing opened at 7:28 p.m.
Randy Hogan (owner of 1982 Hamel Road) stated that he is speaking on behalf of Sara
Hogan, owner of Greenwood Stables LLC. He had previously been in management with a
power company. He stated that when they were considering purchasing the property they
saw the large existing telecommunication tower, but they decided they could put up with the
view of the tower. More than the height, turbine noise was a concern. Typical "rural sound"
density is 20-30 dBa. The turbine would increase local decibel levels by 5 to 10 dBa. He
stated that when the wind is coming from the northwest, which is quite often, the sound from
the turbine would be greatest directly over their new barn. Horses are more sensitive to the
noises, and this will have a large impact on their new private horse barn. In addition to the
sound which can be heard, every structure has a resonate frequency. The turbine might share
the resonate frequency with their new barn, which would have a tremendous impact on the
horses. He stated that the wetland setbacks should be a higher standard for other
governmental agencies. He concluded that there is no public benefit, and Hennepin County
should not be in the business of power production, which is not a purpose of its charter.
Wind energy is a great thing and we should support it, but this is not the place for it, and
those who have to live near the towers should benefit from it. He also stated that he is
concerned that this will set a precedent, because you shouldn't allow one group to do
something and not allow others. Owners up and down Highway 55 might then wish to
construct a turbine.
Jean Corwin (owner of 1975 Hamel Road) stated that the Hennepin County property was
taken from them by eminent domain in the first place. She stated that while there currently
are no buildings on their property, the proposal will significantly diminish property values
when they wish to sell. The tower may make it so there are never buildings on the property.
She stated they had traveled to Elk River to witness a turbine and had heard a constant
whirring or whooshing sound. She stated that it would be very difficult if she was forced to
listen to that rhythm constantly. She felt there is no gain for the City of Medina and noted
that there are no houses or farm animals near the turbine in Elk River.
Leslie Borg stated that she has been a resident for 33 years and is opposed to the application.
It would hurt property values and the rural Medina would be gone.
2
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT August 12, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Bert Gardner (2495 Willow Drive) stated that bad decisions made for good reasons can still
have a tremendously negative impact. He stated that he pictured sandhill cranes being sliced
and diced by this 400 foot veg-a-matic.
Letters from Greenwood Stables @ 2260 Fox Street, Robert B. Laurent @ 2265 Pioneer
Trail, James Sargent Lane @ 2605 Hamel Road, Ken Bechler & Elizabeth Sedgwick @ 4182
Arrowhead Drive, and Eric & Jill Voltin @ 630 Shawnee Woods Road were accepted into
the public record (attached).
Public Hearing closed at 7:46 p.m.
Karl Masaad (Director of Environmental Services, Hennepin County) stated that the County
Board is looking at various ways to help with energy cost. In addition to energy reduction
and conservation, they are also looking at ways of productions. He stated that the County
would be very interested in the studies about noise impacts, to see what types of turbines
were studied and what could be implemented to minimize this concern. With regards to the
concerns, there are studies being finalized on the impact on bird mortality in Northfield,
which have not showed significant increases.
Nolan inquired about the County's solar panel project.
Masaad stated that the County had accepted bids and construction was to begin shortly. This
would produce about 1/10 of the potential energy of a wind turbine.
Nolan inquired if the County had considered smaller turbines.
Masaad stated that they had tried to size the turbine to produce enough energy for the Public
Works facility. There are also economies of scale which point towards larger turbines.
Simons inquired how the wind output/efficiency compares to southwest Minnesota.
Tony Hainault (Hennepin County) stated that a capacity factor above 37 is considered
excellent, and the report describes a 41 capacity. Depending on the area of southwest
Minnesota, it can be lower than this or considerably higher.
R. Reid inquired about lighting of the tower.
Roy Earl (Hennepin County) stated that there is a solid light on the hub, similar to that on the
top of the radio tower.
Simons asked how far from the southern property line Option 2 was located. Benetti stated
that it is approximately 1250 feet.
R. Reid stated that she wished there was unbiased information about the noise.
3
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT August 12, 2008 Meeting Minutes
V. Reid stated that she had attended the tour. She stated the road noise was significantly louder
than the turbine.
Pederson stated that it is commendable that Hennepin County is looking at ways to approach
their energy. Renewable energy is important. It is his job as a Planning Commissioner to listen
to the citizens. He stated that it makes sense at Buffalo Ridge, but that he could not support it in
Medina. He stated that he is here for the residents and they appear to all be opposed to the
application. He stated we need alternative energy, but not in the middle of the City.
Simons stated that he appreciates the comments. He stated that a 40-story building does not
protect the citizenry. He stated that he does not know how this helps the City. Distance from
current buildings is irrelevant, distance to the nearest building pads is more important.
Nolan stated that he also agrees with most of what has been said. We all have an inherent need
to look at alternative energies and to take our share of burden. He stated that he is extremely
surprised that the County facility uses the same energy as 500 homes. Solar panels would have
much less of an impact. Wind turbines make more sense in clusters, which may lead others in
the area to request them. If everyone moved to them, it would be a disaster. He stated that it
seems like a way to meet shrinking budgets in the future, which shouldn't be the main concern.
V. Reid stated that while she is a Planning Commissioner, she is also a citizen of Hennepin
County, Minnesota, and the United States. She feels we need alternative energies and that she
lives relatively close to this location and would drive by it four times every day. She stated that
it appeared that the will of the Commission is to recommend against the application proposed.
R. Reid stated that this is a great idea and something we should be doing, but not in this location.
She felt we have to represent the neighbors, who appear to be unanimously opposed.
Neighboring homeowners have legitimate concern. She stated that she is less concerned with the
noise. This will set a precedent. The wind turbine does not need to be in this location in order to
achieve the goals. The turbine can go anywhere and sell to the grid and have the same effect.
She stated that she wished she could get behind it, but she can't.
Motion by Simons, seconded by Nolan to recommend denial of the General Plan for the Planned
Unit Development Amendment based on the findings described by the Commission (Absent:
Verbick and Litts).
7. Baker Golf and Ski Chalet — 2935 Park View Drive (PID 17-118-29-11-0003) — Conditional
Use Permit Amendment for construction of two 22' x 80' (1760 square feet each) accessory
structures for the storage of electric golf carts in the Public/Semi-Public zoning district.
Finke presented the application, explaining that the request is to construct two accessory
buildings for the storage of electric golf carts. The location of the accessory structures are within
the "Baker Park Reserve Composite Master Plan" which dictates the area that may developed.
He further noted that staff recommended the applicant add any future projects for this area to be
included as part of the application. A restroom addition and locker rooms were discussed as a
future project but plans had not been developed. Planning staff recommended that the applicant
4
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT August 12, 2008 Meeting Minutes
request the restroom and locker room expansion be part of the application, as long as the
expansions fell under 5% of the buildings square footage.
Finke further explained to the Commission that he had consolidated all resolutions with their
conditions.
Doug Berens (Three Rivers Park District) informed the Commission that the Park District had in
previous years discussed construction of storage buildings for the golf carts. He said keeping the
carts out of the elements and to prevent vandalism is important. They also wanted to go with
electric golf carts since they are more environmentally friendly.
Pederson asked Berens if he knew why the number of staff had increased at the golf course.
Berens indicated that they tend to do more labor intensive work such as hand mowing the greens
instead of using larger mowers that they don't spray, which increases the amount of labor needed
during the summer months. Nolan clarified that the increase in labor was not geared towards
food and beverage or clubhouse activities. Berens stated that 75% of the staff was for
maintenance of the golf course.
Public hearing opened at 8:35 p.m.
Weir informed the Commission that the Council is encouraging rain gardens whenever accessory
structures are proposed. She asked the Commission if they would consider this as a condition.
Pederson stated that it was a good idea and that the Commission would discuss it. He further
asked the applicant if they had considered the installation of a rain garden. Berens said he was
not sure, but would check with their water resources manager.
Pederson asked if the applicant was adding more hard coverage with the project. Berens
indicated that it was not much more since the current parking location is considered a hard
surfaced area. He further felt that the existing conditions could handle the run-off Finke stated
that staff had discussed the stormwater treatment with the applicant and found that the existing
stormwater pond provides adequate infiltration. He also noted that runoff runs overland for over
1000 feet, which provides some additional opportunity for infiltration, even if it is over turf.
Public Hearing closed at 8:38 p.m.
R. Reid does not have any issues with the application. She also does not have an issue with
controlling the number of employees. She said the application doesn't appear to be a major
change from the existing CUP and felt that the use of electric golf carts was good.
V. Reid agreed with R. Reid and felt that allowing expansions up to 5 % was a good idea to
streamline projects.
Pederson felt the condition of the number of employees should remain as a condition since we do
control other businesses and the number of employees. Benetti informed the Commission that he
spoke with the City Attorney and that the City shouldn't regulate the number of employees
5
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT August 12, 2008 Meeting Minutes
unless it is specifically stated in the zoning ordinance. The Commission concluded that it was a
good idea to exclude the condition referencing the number of employees.
Nolan requested staff to better clarify the language on the 5 percent expansion allowance without
a CUP Amendment.
Motion by Nolan, seconded by V. Reid to approve the CUP Amendment for the construction of
two accessory structures, subject to the recommended changes. Motion carries unanimously
(Absent: Verbick and Litts).
8. Ordinance Amendment - Chapter 8 of the Citv's Zoning Ordinance — Creating a Private
Recreation zoning district.
Finke presented the proposed private recreation zoning district ordinance. He indicated that the
Comprehensive Plan identifies three areas that fall under Public/ Semi -Public. During the
Comprehensive Plan process it was decided that a separate land use be utilized as Private
Recreation. Discussion of development standards was explained in depth. He stated that the
ordinance allows limited residential development where urban services are available.
Staff held a public open house for the three properties zoned Public/Semi-Public and sent a
mailing to all properties within 350 feet. He further reminded the Commission that the
discussion was a public hearing.
Nolan asked about the PUD requirement. Finke explained that the PUD would regulate all
properties within the Private Recreation zoning district. If a residential project came in, staff
would have residential standards as a guide. If a project such as a golf course addition were to be
submitted, the City would need to add additional lot standards for such uses other than
residential.
Litts asked if some of these recreational parcels became uneconomically viable, do they still
have to be used for recreational use or can they change it. Finke explained that an owner could
apply for a Comprehensive Plan amendment if they wished to change the use. Under the draft
ordinance, 15 percent of the land could be developable for residential. This could potentially add
value to property and make the broader recreational use more viable.
Finke explained that the smallest parcel in this area is 12 acres. The rural designation was made
twice the size as the RR2 requirements (commercial horse zoning district). The thought was that
the larger parcels would have open space benefits.
R. Reid asked if someone could build townhomes. Finke replied that the proposal must meet the
density required by the ordinance, which may make townhomes likely.
Pederson asked what staff wanted the Commission to look at for a developable percentage.
Finke stated that the draft ordinance allows up to 15 percent of the entire property, and that the
Commission should discuss this regulation.
6
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT August 12, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Simons said that he thinks of a 40 percent hard coverage as fine if it's for horse paddocks, but
not if it is "actual" hard surfaces. Finke replied that the definition of hard coverage in the PREC
district does not specifically address paddocks.
Open Public Hearing @ 9:10 p.m.
Eric Voltin, resident at 630 Shawnee Woods Road, explained that he reviewed the proposed
ordinance. He has concern with the opportunity to allow residential density such as townhomes
at Medina Country Club. He's also concerned with County Road 116 and Foxberry Farms Road
having further traffic placed on it. He's primarily opposed to developments along Shawnee
Woods Road. He further provides his opinion on the lack of viability and rural character for
townhomes to be located on such a small road as Shawnee Woods Road.
Pederson explained to the public that allowing a percentage of residential within the private
recreation zoning district was approved through the Comprehensive Plan process.
Finke stated that the required density is discussed within the ordinance. R. Reid said she
acknowledged that trees, traffic, and wetlands would be dealt with when an application came in;
and presently the issue at hand is designing an ordinance and not an actual residential project.
Voltin concluded that the future residential projects should have similar characteristics and
density as the surrounding properties if proposed in the future.
Dave Newman of Bancor Group explained that the project presented 2 years ago was concept
only. The project they ultimately move forward with may be very different depending on the
market. He stated that with the new tree preservation and wetland ordinances in place, the site
has become extremely tight. He suggested the Commission consider allowing more of the
property for residential development so that trees and wetlands could be protected.
John, President of Medina Country Club, stated that the Club really received no financial benefit
from any residential development. He further raised concern that the club be able to replace an
existing maintenance buildings in the future at the golf course. His main concern is the language
that references development parcel by parcel. He explained that they have a number of parcels
associated with the golf course and the proposed ordinance could have impacts on the
improvements they want to make with their future maintenance barn.
Pederson asked for clarification on a future project that would be PUD rather than parcel by
parcel. Finke replied that the PUD would only be necessary for residential development. If the
Club needed to construct an addition or a new structure, the City would look at each individual
parcel. This may lead tothe need to rearrange or combine lots. If lots were combined, the Club
should have no problem meeting setbacks or hardcover requirements.
Finke read an e-mail from Steve Theesfeld, 600 Shawnee Road (attached).
Pederson explained that he is the first resident that would be impacted if a development were
proposed.
7
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT August 12, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Nolan explained the Comprehensive Plan process to the public with the proposed revisions.
Simons asked about density range for private recreation. Finke stated that there was not a
specific percentage established through the Comprehensive Plan process. Simons then asked
what the lowest residential density was and Benetti stated its 2.0-3.49 units per acre.
Nolan asked about the City's discretion as it relates to PUD's with a future application. Finke
said the ordinance recommends that in order to have a PUD, a certain percentage of residential
density would be required. The intention is for the required density and the maximum
developable percentage to limit the discretion during the PUD review.
R. Reid asked what the lowest density is in the Comprehensive Plan. Finke stated that low
density residential requires 2-3.5 units/net acre. However, the City is responsible for maintaining
3-5 units/net acre across the entire City. During Comp Plan discussions, the City allowed some
areas with lower density, but this had to be "made up" by areas with some higher density.
Close Public Hearing @ 9:30 p.m.
Simons voiced concern for allowing 40 percent hard coverage. Finke explained that the majority
of the discussion was related to golf courses, but there are other different recreational uses which
may come into the City, which may require more hardcover. He also noted that one of the lots at
the Medina Country Club is approaching 40% hard cover.
Pederson asked which property has 40 percent coverage. Finke explained that the parcel on
which the clubhouse and parking lot is located is close to 40 percent hardcover.
Litts asked if we had to deal with 40 percent hard coverage since only one of the lots has that
percentage and the rest have almost no hard cover. Finke explained that reducing the hardcover
would bring this individual lot into non -conformity. He noted that combining the lots would
bring them into conformance because the larger lots include almost no hardcover.
Litts expressed concern that if the City is treating the golf course as though it has the same
ownership (which it doesn't), it could cause issues for future development.
Simons and the balance of the Commissioners agreed that the 40 percent hard coverage was not
acceptable and should be further looked at for other alternatives.
Pederson suggested that staff incorporate two sided architecture under the design standards.
Commission discussed percentage and density and the tree ordinance for developers to be able to
stick to the ordinance.
Simons favors standards that are consistent with underlying zoning ordinance.
8
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT August 12, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Nolan stated that he likes the idea of giving developers flexibility, but that residential should go
with the underlying zoning. However, since the district is not consistent with medium density
residential, he would be comfortable with a required density of 3-5 units/net acre.
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Simons to recommend approval of the ordinance with the
following recommended changes: increasing maximum developable area to 20 percent, change
density requirements to 3-5 units/net acre, adding two sided residential architecture design
standards, and directing staff to further research impervious surface and lot sizes. Motion
carries unanimously (Absent: Verbick and Litts).
9. Open Discussion Item: Mixed Use District
Finke presented the mixed use district recommendations. He informed the Commission that this
area would be along major roadways with Commercial along the actual roadway and higher
density at the rear of the commercial. He further explained the purpose of the mixed use area.
Staff recommended it to be a holding zone like the RR-UR zoning district until the MUSA is
extended and open for development. At time of development it would be rezoned to some other
designation. The mixed use zoning would stay in place until the property is developed. He
further explained the purpose of allowing market flexibility. He then raised a question to the
Commission if they would like to establish the residential and commercial standards prior to
moving forward with this ordinance, since the City may use them as a guide for this area. He
said if the Commission decides to move forward with this ordinance amendment for this area as
a holding zone, density would be a topic staff would like to discuss.
Pederson said he would prefer to have the ordinance brought back at a later date.
Simons agreed with Pederson.
Nolan was thinking that this area was going to be developed with a PUD with an overall plan.
He raised concern for the potential of inconsistency without a PUD.
R. Reid asked what the City does for areas that have commercial on a lower level and residential
above, since this is what she envisioned for this area. Finke and Commission discussed the use
of a PUD which allows for flexibility to clarify R. Reid's question.
Nolan said he would like to get feedback from others that were part of the process.
Pederson asked about the Comprehensive Plan timeline. Finke stated that it is August 20th, 2008
for comments from other communities. At that time the City will decide whether they will act on
any of the comments.
Nolan stated he would like some guidance from the City Council on some of the larger parcels
within this area prior to making decisions as it relates to the zoning district.
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT August 12, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Finke asked the Commission what they thought about greater flexibility for this zoning district.
Nolan stated that the PUD would allow for the flexibility when a project is in process.
10. Future Meeting Information: Staff informed the Commission that the next meeting
date had been changed to a Wednesday due to elections and it will be held on September
10th, 2008.
11. Adjourn: Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Nolan to adjourn at 10:29 p.m. Motion
carries unanimously. (Absent: Verbick and Litts).
10
Agenda Item: G
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Associate Planner; through Planning Director Benetti
DATE: September 5, 2008
MEETING: September 10, 2008 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Open Discussion: Commercial/Industrial zoning districts
Comprehensive Plan Compliance
The Comprehensive Plan identifies three broad commercial/industrial uses within the Guide
Plan. See the attached map for the location of these uses. The uses are described as follows:
Commercial (C) provides areas for highway oriented businesses and retail establishments; can
include commercial, office and retail uses; is concentrated along the TH 55 corridor and are
served or will be served by urban services.
General Business (GB) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including light
industrial and retail uses. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for
office and business park developments and are served or will be served by urban services.
Industrial Business (IB) identifies areas that are currently used for manufacturing or
processing of products and refers to lighter industrial uses in the community. The area is
concentrated on TH 55 to allow access to primary transportation corridors and is served by
urban services.
The Comp Plan also establishes a list of objectives for Commercial Uses When designing
ordinances, the City should strive for these objectives
Commercial Uses
The following objectives refer to commercial and industrial land uses that are connected to or
planned for urban services.
The Urban Commercial area is along the TH 55 corridor and will support businesses to benefit the
residential areas to the north and south and commuters who travel on TH 55. Businesses will
provide a variety of retail products and services mixed with light industrial/warehouses and
smaller offices.
Objectives:
1. Provide convenient and attractive shopping and services to meet the needs of City
residents.
2. Avoid multiple access points to collector and arterial roads.
Commercial/Industrial 1 Planning Commission
Zoning Discussion September 10, 2008
3. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment
opportunities offering convenience goods and services, utilizing high quality design, and
having limited impact on public services.
4. Require commercial activities that serve the broader metropolitan market to have access
to a regional highway or frontage road.
5. Regulate the impact of commercial development along the border between commercially
and residentially guided areas to ensure that commercial property has a minimal impact
on residential areas.
6. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and
to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of
Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3)
standards.
7. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor.
8. Create standards that promote a more rural appearance, or create campus style
developments.
9. Require frontage roads that do not directly access TH 55 corridor.
10. Require developments to provide frontage roads as shown conceptually in the
transportation plan.
11. Require conditional use permits for manufacturing, processing, cleaning, storage,
maintenance and testing of goods and products in order to prevent adverse affects to the
City and its residents.
12. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are
compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public
streets and highways. PUD's may be used to help accomplish this policy.
Existing Regulations
Within existing ordinances, commercial activities are divided into three primary districts: Urban
Commercial (Section 831), Business Park (Section 832), and Industrial Park (Section 833). The
Rural Commercial Holding zone (Section 835) includes a small number of parcels which are
currently not served by City sewer/water, but are intended to be developed with city services.
Commissioners may review these regulations within their City Code books, and they are also
available on the City's website. Staff will consult with Commissioners regarding your thoughts
about the strengths and weaknesses of the existing regulations to be carried over or altered.
Staff has also prepared a summary of regulations in some of the surrounding communities for
purposes of reference. Please see the attached tables.
Commercial/Industrial 2 Planning Commission
Zoning Discussion September 10, 2008
Districts
As is evidenced by regulations in other cities, different communities may utilize different
districts to regulate commercial uses. A distinction is almost always made between
business/commercial and industrial uses. Additionally, communities often differentiate between
"neighborhood" and "highway" commercial uses, and sometimes also call out a district for office
concentration.
The Industrial Business land use is limited to the area southeast of the Highway 55/Arrowhead
Drive intersection. This area is currently zoned Industrial Park. The Commission may want to
consider utilizing this zoning district since there are only a small number of parcels remaining in
the use, and one is already developed under the Industrial Park standards.
The General Business land use includes tracts of undeveloped land, and also a number of
properties which are developed as industrial uses (around the Highway 55/Willow Drive
intersection). The Commission should discuss if Business Park should be used as a guide for this
use, what changes should be considered, and if there would be reason to further divide this area
into numerous zones.
The Commercial land use includes a number of undeveloped properties adjacent to Highway 55,
consistent with highway oriented uses. Additionally, the land use also includes the developed
office/warehouse areas along Pinto/Tower Drive and north of Clydesdale Trail. These areas
differ to an extent that separate zoning classifications are warranted. Because of the location of
most of the Commercial land use property, a "neighborhood commercial" zone may not be
utilized. This type of zone would be more likely within the Mixed Use, where the commercial
use will be more accessible to residential dwellings.
Specific Regulations for Further Discussion
Lot Size
The Business Park and Industrial Park zoning districts require a minimum of 5 acres. This is
larger than comparable ordinances in other cities. Such a requirement limits development to uses
which tend to have larger buildings. Urban Commercial requires 1 acre. The Commission
should discuss this issue in relation to some of the ordinances in other cities.
Tree Preservation
Business Park, Industrial Park, and Urban Commercial districts require replacement for every
significant tree removed. Additionally, the ordinance requires street trees and landscaping. The
City passed a tree preservation ordinance for residential development back in 2006 which allows
a percentage of trees to be removed based on the size of the property. The Commission should
discuss if they wish to apply a similar regulation in commercial zones.
Building Materials
Staff has found that the building material requirements in the existing ordinance are fairly
consistent with requirements in other cities. Staff plans to utilize a similar list when crafting the
commercial/industrial district regulations, unless the Commission has additional input.
Commercial/Industrial 3 Planning Commission
Zoning Discussion September 10, 2008
Landscaping Requirements
Current ordinances require one street tree per 50 feet of lot frontage. In researching other city
ordinances, it appears to be common to count the entire lot perimeter. Additionally, some
ordinances require understory shrubs based on lot perimeter or building square footage. Another
strategy utilized by cities is to require a percentage of the project value to be spent on
landscaping.
Building Modulation
Current ordinances speak broadly about requiring building modulation in order to break up
monotonous building facades. In the Uptown Hamel ordinance, staff had suggested a
requirement that buildings facades are modulated every 40 feet.
Hardcover
Business Park and Industrial Park districts limit hardcover to 50% of the site, and Industrial Park
limits hardcover to 60%. Some cities do not regulate by hardcover, but rather by limiting the
size of building in comparison to the lot. See the table for comparison.
Outside Storage
Within current ordinance, outside storage is limited to Industrial Park and larger (5 acre+) Urban
Commercial lots. Staff has heard a lot of comments from businesses looking for the availability
of outside storage. The comparison table from other cities identifies how they regulate the
storage. The Commission may also discuss what zones outside storage should be permitted
within, and what type of restrictions (lot size, screening, location) should be used.
Uses
When discussing the Uptown Hamel ordinance, the City Council favored a more generalized list
of uses within the zoning ordinances. If the Commission has specific uses which they believe
should be limited to certain districts (for example, no auto uses within a neighborhood
commercial zone), this should be discussed.
Attachments
1. DRAFT Future Land Use Map
2. Selection of regulations in other cities
Commercial/Industrial 4 Planning Commission
Zoning Discussion September 10, 2008
Independence
Map 5-2
City of Medina
Future Land Use Plan
Guide Plan
Permanent Rural
Rural Res -Urban Reserve
Low Density Res 2.0 - 3.49 U/A
J Medium Density Res 3.5 - 6.99 U/A
High Density Res 7 - 30 U/A
Mixed Use 3.5 - 6.99 U/A
Mixed Use - Business 7 - 45 U/A
Commercial
General Business
Industrial Business
Private Recreation (PREC)
Parks and Recreation
® Open Space
■ Public Semi -Public 0 U/A
Closed Sanitary Landfill
ROW-E
*This map is not perfectly precise.
Actual boundaries may vary, and
should be field verified.
Map Date: February 15, 2008
Parceld current as of October 2006
UTM, Zone 15N, NAD 83
Scale: 1:30,000
DRAFT
0.25 0.5
1
Mile
Summary of Commercial Regulations in Other Cities
City
District
tot
Size
(acres)
Lot
Width
Floor
Area
Ratio
Front
Setback
Rear
Setback
Side
Setback
Residential
Setback
Parking
Setback
(front)
Parking
setback
(side)
impervious
Surfaces
Landscaping
Max
Building
Coverage
Outside Storage
Minnetrista
C-1 - Othce/limited
commercial
1
150
50
25
15
75
20
20
25%
CUP, fully screened
C-2 - Highway Service
150
50
25
15
75
15
15
35%
CUP, fully screened
C-3 - Shopping Center
200
50
35
35
75
20
20
25%
CUP, fully screened
Corcoran
C:-1 - Neighborhood
Commercial
1
100
25
20
20
50
25
10
90%
1 tree/50 feet
of site
C-2 - Community Commercial
1
100
25
20
20
50
25
10
80%
Same as C-1
BP - Business Park
1
100
50
20
20
50
50
10
70%
Same as C-1
CUP, paved, fully screened
Maple Grove
Business
1
30
10
10
100
70%
25%
Sales: Meet setbacks, paved,
screened and buffered
Freeway Frontage (PUD)
5
50
100
30
75%
30%
Orono
B-1 - Retail Sales
0.46
20
30
20
15
15%
B-3 - Shopping Center
2
0.28
60
60
60
100
20
5
15%
B-4 - Office and Professional
0.46
35
35
15
35
20
30
15%
B-5 - Limited Neighborhood
0.46
35
35
15
35
15
10
15%
B-6 - Highway Commercial
2
30
30
30
35
15
10
2% of project
value
Burnsville
- Office Business
0.46
30
30
10
30
30
5
70%
30%
_B-1
B-2 - Neighborhood Business
0.46
30
30
10
30
10
5
70%
30%
15.000
B-3 - General Business
0.46
30
30
10
30
10
5
75%
25%
CUP
B-4 - Highway Commercial
0.92
40
40
20
40
20
15
75%
25%
CUP
Rockford
C-1 - Commercial Service
0.5
100
35
25
15
40
15
35%
Meet setbacks, screened and
buffered
C-3 - Highway Commercial
1
150
35
25
15
40
15
35%
Sales: 5% lot; storage=same
as C-1
Plymouth
O - Office
1
200
50
15
15
75
20
20
1 tree/50 feet
of site
50%
C-1 - Convenience
Commercial
1
100
35
15
15
75
20
20
Same as O
50%
C;-2 - Neighborhood
Commercial
1
100
35
15
15
75
20
20
Same as O
50%
C-3 - Highway Commercial
1
100
50
15
15
75
20
20
Same as O
50%
C-4 - Community Commercial
1
100
50
15
15
75
20
20
Same as O
50%
B-C - Business Campus
1
100
50
15
15
75
20
20
Same as O
35%
"
Wayzata
G-1 A - Neighborhood
Office/Limited Commercial
0.21
2
10
10
10
10
10
50%
C-2 - Shopping Center
0.46
1
20
20
50
10
10
20%
CUP, paved, screened
C-3 - Service District
0.34
1
10
10
20
50
10
10
20%
50%
Same as C-2
Summary of Commercial Regulations in Utner ulties auowea uses)
City
District
PermittedUse1
PermittedUse2
PermittedUse3
PermittedUse4
ConditionalUsel
ConditionalUse2
ConditionalUse3
Condi#ionalUse4
Restaurants,
Clubs/Lodges
Minnetrista commercial
C-1 - Office/limited
Offices (including
medical)
Banks
Nursing Homes,
Hospitals, Funeral Home
Motel/Hotel
Educational tacdities,
Day Care, Religious
C-2 - Highway Service
Offices (including
medical)
Service Businesses
Printing, Skill trades
Funeral Home
Auto/Marne Sales, auto
repair
Motel/Hotel
Educational facilities
Commercial recreation
C-3 - Shopping Center
Offices (including
medical)
Banks
Retail Uses, Restaurants
Funeral Home
Nursing Homes
Auto/Marine Sales
Educational facilities,
Day Care Religious
Commercial recreation
Corcoran
C-1 - Neighborhood
Commercial
Certain retail and service
businesses
Offices
Restaurants, clubs,
lodges
Auto uses (motor fuel
station, car wash, drive-
Commercial recreation,
hotels
Senior housing, nursing
homes
Hospitals (human and
vet)
C-2 - Community Commercial
C-1 uses
Home Furniture,
Appliances
Sporting goods
C-1 conditional
Assisted Living
Offices
Light Manufacturing,
Industrial, printing
Warehousing
Banks
Hotels
Vehicle repair, vehicle
sales
Educational facilities
Hotels/Motels
BP - Business Park
Maple Grove
Business
Retail Uses
Personal Service
Businesses
Essential Services
Freeway Frontage (PUD)
B-1 - Retail Sales
Retail and Service
Businesses
Restaurants
Offices
Day Care
Orono
Retail and Service
Businesses
Restaurants
Offices
Day Care
B-3 - Shopping Center
B-4 - Office and Professional
Offices
Clinics
Banks
Nursing Homes,
Hospitals
Animal hospitals
B-5 - Limited Neighborhood
Certain retail and service
businesses
Certain Retail and
Service
B-6 - Highway Commercial
Offices
Banks
Motels/Hotels
Restaurants
Drive-thrus
B-1 - Office Business
Offices
Health Clubs
Daycare, schools,
colleges
Clinics
Funeral homes
Nursing homes
Art studio, interior
decorating, photography,
Burnsville
B-2 - Neighborhood Business
B-1 uses
Certain retail and service
uses
B-1 conditional
Motor fuel stations and
Car Wash
Restaruants, taverns,
liquor store
B-3 - General Business
B-1 and B-2 uses
Auto uses
Printing/ Publishing/
Photograph
B-1 and B-2 conditional
Vet, Trade skills
Open sales or storage lot
B-4 - Highway Commercial
Trade skills
Outdoor recreation
Open sales or storage lot
C-1 - Commercial Service
Personal service/repair
uses
Skill trades
Pnnting/Publishing/F'hoto
graph
Veterinary, taxidermists
Funeral homes
Dry cleaning
Business/trade schools
Rockford
C-3 - Highway Commercial
Retail and Service
Businesses
Auto/RV sales, auto
repair
Hospitals/labs
Liquor stores
Plymouth
—
—
O - Office
Offices
Clinics - human and vet
Funeral homes
Senior housing, nursing
homes
Bank w/ drive-thru
Motor fuel station &
convenience grocery
Educational facilities
-C-1 - Convenience
Commercial
Certain retail and service
businesses
Offices (not
medical/dental)
Dry cleaners,
Laundromats
Motor fuel station &
convenience grocery
Day care
C-2 - Neighborhood
Commercial
Certain retail and service
businesses
Offices
Veteranarian
Ury cleaners,
Laundromats
Motor tuel station &
convenience grocery
Day Care
Supermarket/Grocery
C-3 - Highway Commercial
Certain retail and service
businesses
Offices
Indoor recreation
Veterinary
Ury cleaners,
Laundromats
Motor tuel station &
convenience grocery
Drive-thru
Car Washes
C-4 - Community Commercial
Retail and Service
Businesses
Offices
Veterinary
Dry cleaners,
Laundromats
Motor tuel station &
convenience grocery,
Drive-thru
Funeral Home
B-C - Business Campus
Banks
Offices, Printing
Recreation, indoor
C;onterence, reception
hall
Manufacturing/Warehous
ing
Hotels/Motels
Day Care
Restaurants
C-1A - Neighborhood
Office/Limited Commercial
Offices
Barber, beauty shop
Art studio, interior
decorating, photo studio
Day care <12 persons
Banks (no drive-thru)
Dry cleaning
Wayzata
C-2 - Shopping Center
Retail and Service
Businesses
Auto service, motor fuel
station,
Indoor recreation
Restaurants
Child care
C-3 - Service District
Retail and Service
Businesses
Offices
C-2 Conditional
Auto Sales
Motels/Hotels
Nursery
Summary of Industrial Regulations in Other Cities
District
Lot Size
Floor
Area
Ratio
Front
Setback
Rear
Setback
Side
Setback
Residential
Setback
Parking'
Setback
(front)
'Parking
Setback
(side)
impervious
Surfaces
Building
Coverage
Outside Storage
Landscaping
Acceptable Building Materials
Disallowed Building
Materials
Maple Grove
Industrial
1
40
20
20
100
Setbacks, paved,
screened
Brick, Stone, Glass, or decorative material
approved by Council (decorative masonry or
other)
Metal, smooth -faced block
Orono
Industrial
0.92
35
20
10
85%
45%
1/1000 S.F. of
building; or
1/40 feet of
site perimeter
> 67% face brick, stucco, stone; < 33%
concrete panels, rock faced -concrete block
Burnsville
I-1 -Industrial Park
0.92
40
20
20
50
50%
CUP
25%
Face brick, stone, galss, stucco, synthetic
stucco, fiber cement vertical panel siding,
architertural concrete, precast panels, color
impregnated decorative block.
Unadorned prestressed
concrete panels, nondecorative
concrete block, sheet metal,
corrugated metal, unfinished
metal. <25% may be fiber
cement lag siding, wood, or
1-2 - General Industrial
0.92
40
30
15
50
10
5
50%
CUP
25%
Same as 1-1
Same as I-1
1-3 - Office and Industrial Park
0.92
40
20
20
60
20
15
40%
CUP
30%
Same as 1-1
Same as 1-1
Rockford
Industrial
2
35
35
25
75
15
50%
25%
<25% may be wood, curtain wall panels
(steel, fiberglass, aluminum, glass), stucco -
otherwise solid wall masonry, pre -cast
concrete, aggregate panels, wood frame
masonry veneer (excluding stucco).
Plymouth
1-1 - Light Industrial
1
50
15
15
75
50
20
35%
CUP, screened,
paved
1 tree/50 feet
of site
perimeter or 1
tree/1000
S.F. building
Brick, natural stone, integral colored split face
(rock face) concrete block, cast -in -place
concrete, pre -cast concrete panels, wood,
curtain wall panels (steel, fibergalss,
aluminum, lass stucco, vinyl
glass), Y
Metal/fiberglass curtain walls
must be facedwith brick, stone,
or wood. 50% max metal or
fiberglass
1-2 - General Industrial
1
50
15
15
75
50
20
50%
Same as 1-1
Same as 1-1
Same as I-1
Same as I-1
1-3 - Heavy Industrial
1
50
15
15
75
50
20
50%
Same as 1-1
Same as 1-1
Same as I-1
Same as 1-1
Minnetrista
I- Industrial
2
50
35
25
75
PaNk ng
15
35%
CUP, screened
Wayzata
BW - Business Warehouse
0.69
1
25
20
20
50
CUP, screened,
paved
Brick, natural stone, decorative concrete
block, cast -in -place concete or precast
panels, wood, curtain wall panels (steel,
fibergalss, aluminum, glass), stucco, vinyl
s in Other Cities (allowed uses
District
PermittedUse1
-- -•- ----
PermittedUse2
- -..,
PermittedUse3
PermittedUse4
PennitedUse5
ConditionalUse1
ConditionaiUse2
ConditionalUse 3
Maple Grove
Industrial
Manufacturing
Wholesaling
Storage
Office
rnysicai
recreation/training
facilities
Orono
Industrial
Manufacturing
Skill trades
Warehousing
Office
Outdoor Storage
Mini -storage
Burnsville
1-1 - Industrial Park
Lighter manufacturing
Warehousing/
Wholesaling
Machine Shop
Office
Trade/business school
B-3 conditional
Contractor yard (inside
or fenced)
Open sales/storage
1-2 - General Industrial
1-1 uses
Oil, gas, liquid storage
Manufacturing
1-1 conditional
Auto wrecking, junk and
salvage
Explosives and Acid
1-3 - Office and Industrial Park
Manufacturing
Warehousing/
Wholesaling
Trade/Business School
Office
Stadium, sports arena
Open storage
Recycling/Reclamation
Rockford
Industrial
Manufacturing
Printing
Warehousing
Outdoor industrial uses
Outdoor sales (5% of
land)
Recycling processing
center
Plymouth
1-1 - Light Industrial
Manufacturing
Machine Shops
Auto Body
Warehousing/Mini-
storage
Contractor
Offices in excess of
50%
Auto repair
Truck/Trailer rental
1-2 - General Industrial
1-1 uses
Truck Terminal
1-1 conditional
Dog daycare/boarding
Towing (open yard)
1-3 - Heavy Industrial
1-2 uses
Heavy manufacturing
1-2 conditional
Manufacturing,
chemical
I- Industrial
Light Manufacturing
Dry Cleaning/Laundry
Skills Trades
Warehousing/ Mini-
storage
Offices
Manufacturing
Freight/truck terminals
Minnetrista
BW - Business Warehouse
Offices
Auto Repair
Indoor Recreation
Wholesale showrooms
Conference centers
Manufacturing
Wayzata