Loading...
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