HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-08-2015 POSTED IN CITY HALL September 4, 2015
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
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 11, 2015 Draft Planning Commission minutes.
6. Public Hearing – 3 Rivers Church – 52 Hamel Road – Conditional Use
Permit
7. Wealshire of Medina – PID 03-118-23-24-0003 – Rezoning, Site Plan
Review, Interim Use Permit
8. Update on Comprehensive Plan Update Process/Schedule
9. Council Meeting Schedule
10. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 September 1, 2015
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: August 27, 2015
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates September 1, 2015 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Stonegate Conservation Design Subdivision – west of Deerhill, East of Homestead. The applicant
has requested PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a conservation design
subdivision of 42 lots on 170 gross acres. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
matter at the July 14 meeting and found that the proposed conservation design subdivision does not
fully meet the objectives of the CD-district. As a result, the Commission recommended denial. The
Park Commission reviewed on July 15. The City Council reviewed on August 5 and asked for a
number of changes and reviewed an updated site plan on August 18. Following review, the Council
directed staff to prepare documents of approval, providing the applicant updates the plat and plans as
directed by September 1. If the applicant provides these updates, the documents will be presented at
the September 15 meeting.
B) Buehler Plat – Robert Buehler has requested approval of a plat to separate 2782 Willow Drive from
an adjacent property. The parcels were a single lot and a previous owner sold portions of the lot to
two separate buyers. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property to create a buildable lot, and the
other portion of the property would be platted as an outlot. Planning Commission held a hearing at
the August 11 meeting and split 3-3 on the recommendation. Staff intends to present to the Council
at the September 1 meeting.
C) Etzel Setback Variance – 2942 Lakeshore Ave. – Brian Etzel has requested a variance to reduce the
setback from Balsam Street from 30 feet to 12 feet for expansion of an existing deck. The proposed
expansion is proposed to be setback the same distance as the existing deck, continuing the same
building line. The Planning Commission reviewed at the August 11 meeting and recommended
approval. Staff intends to present to the Council at the September 1 meeting.
D) 3 Rivers Church CUP – 3 Rivers Church has requested a conditional use permit to operate within
the existing office building at 52 Hamel Road. A public hearing is scheduled for the September 8
Planning Commission meeting.
E) Wealshire LLC Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan Review – Wealshire, LLC has
requested a site plan review for construction of a 173,000 sf memory care facility. The request also
includes a rezoning from RR-UR to Business Park and an Interim Use Permit to permit continued
agricultural use of the portion of the property not proposed to be developed. The Met Council has
also approved of the previous Comp Plan amendment. The Planning Commission meeting reviewed
the rezoning, site plan review and interim use permit at the February 10 meeting and unanimously
recommended approval. The City Council reviewed at the May 19 meeting and directed staff to
prepare approval documents. The applicant has subsequently changed their proposed site plan. Staff
is conducting a preliminary review to determine if it is appropriate to present the changes to the
Planning Commission.
F) St. Peter and Paul Cemetery and Hamel Place –The City Council has adopted resolutions
approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order
to complete the projects.
G) Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll– these preliminary plats have been approved and staff is awaiting a
final plat application
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 September 1, 2015
City Council Meeting
H) Hamel Haven subdivisions, Wakefield Valley Farm – These subdivisions have all received final
approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before construction
begins.
I) Goddard School Site Plan Review – PJ Norman LLC has requested Site Plan Review approval to
construct a new building to house a Goddard School at 345 Clydesdale Trail (next to Caribou
Coffee). The City Council approved the project on July 21 and staff is working with the applicant
on the conditions of approval before construction.
J) Wright-Hennepin Solar Panels – WH has requested a conditional use permit for the installation of a
solar garden approximately an acre in area at their substation on Willow Drive, south of Highway
55. The Council adopted a resolution of approval at the June 16 meeting. Staff will work with the
applicant to meet the conditions of approval before construction.
Other Projects
A) Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks – a resident of the Enclave development has requested that the City
reconsider the requirement that decks be set back 15 feet from Upland Buffers. The setback limits
the size of decks on a number of the lots in the Enclave development. Staff presented the ordinance
at the July Planning Commission meeting. The Commission was concerned of the unintended
consequences of reducing the required setback and recommended denial. Following the Planning
Commission review, the interested parties requested that the Commission consider a 10 foot setback.
The Planning Commission recommended denial 5-1 on August 11. Staff presented to the Council on
August 18 and the Council requested additional information. Staff intends to present the information
at the September 1 meeting.
B) Commercial connection fees – Planning staff provided information to Finance related to historical
commercial connection fees and projections in the future. The Council discussed at the August 18
worksession and directed staff to prepare an amendment for review which would provide some
credit for small businesses moving into existing buildings. Staff intends to present this information
at the September 1 meeting.
C) Watershed Dues Analysis – Planning staff prepared figures for the City Council’s review at the
August 18 special session related to establishing different stormwater utility fees for each watershed
district so that residents of Elm Creek and Pioneer-Sarah Creek can pay the cost. The City Council
requested additional information, which staff intends to prepare for the September 15 worksession.
D) Cable Buildout Discussion – Planning staff has continued to assist with negotiations related to
Mediacom’s expansion in the City.
E) Park at Fields of Medina Grand Opening – some Planning staff assisted with and attended the
Grand Opening which was very well attended.
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday August 11, 2015 4
5
1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, Victoria Reid, 8
Janet White, and Kent Williams. 9
10
Absent: Planning Commissioner Charles Nolan. 11
12
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke 13
14
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15 16
No comments made. 17
18
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19
20
City Councilmember Anderson provided an update on the recent activity of the Council. He 21
stated that at the Council meeting the previous week the Council had a lengthy discussion 22
regarding the Stonegate request and voted unanimously to direct staff to prepare both a 23
resolution of denial and a resolution of approval that would be contingent upon the applicant 24
providing a revised plan that incorporates the comments made by the Planning Commission 25
and City Council. He hoped that the applicant would bring back a revised plan. 26
Williams asked if the resolutions worked in tandem or whether they would be mutually 27
exclusive. 28
29
Anderson explained that the Council would only adopt one resolution and that would depend 30
upon the action of the applicant. He stated that if the applicant does not revise their plan, the 31
Council would adopt the resolution denying the request. He stated that the resolutions would 32
come before the Council for consideration at their next meeting. 33
34
Williams asked if the applicant were to provide a revised plan, would the Planning 35
Commission also review that plan before the Council. 36
37
Finke stated that there is not enough time within the review period and therefore the Council 38
alone would review any new submissions from the applicant. 39
40
Williams asked if the resolution of approval would address the issue of density. 41
42
Finke stated that a reduction of density was one of the items the applicant was to consider. 43
He stated that staff did receive a revised plan from the applicant today, which appears to have 44
increased the conservation area to 36 percent of the buildable area, which is approximately 45
another seven to eight acres; reduced the number of lots by two, removing one home lot and 46
the pool lot; and increasing the amount of trails. He stated that the question will now be did 47
the applicant go far enough. 48
49
Anderson reported that the Council also considered a preliminary approval of a draft 50
ordinance regarding solar panels in the rural residential zoning districts, noting that staff is 51
2
now preparing a final draft of the ordinance; and the Council also approved the Town Line 52
Road improvement project. 53
54
Murrin referenced the solar ordinance and questioned if the Council suggested any changes 55
from what had been recommended by the Planning Commission. 56
57
Anderson stated that he did not believe any significant changes were suggested from what 58
had been recommended by the Planning Commission. 59
60
4. Planning Department Report 61
62
Finke provided an update. 63
64
5. Approval of the July 14, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 65
66 Motion by Williams, seconded by White, to approve the July 14, 2015, Planning 67
Commission minutes with the noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 68
Nolan) 69
70
6. Robert Buehler – Preliminary Plat and Variance to Divide a Single Lot into 71 a Lot and an Outlot 72
73
Finke stated that this request requires two action items, a Preliminary Plat to subdivide the 74
parcel and a variance request related to the minimum lot size. He stated that the subdivision 75
would create one buildable lot and one outlot. He stated that the variance is to reduce the 76
minimum lot size requirements for the proposed lot. He noted that the subject property is 77
actually a single parcel that encompasses the triangle and rectangular portions. He explained 78
that originally there were two tax identifications issued for the parcel, one for the triangle and 79
one for the rectangle, because the parcel lies within two taxing districts. He stated that it is 80
not uncommon that a single parcel be issued two tax identification numbers for this reason. 81
He stated that a previous owner then conveyed portions of the property to two different 82
parties, which should not have been allowed as the single property is now under ownership of 83
two parties. He stated that there was a home on the western portion of the property, which 84
was demolished by the current owner and the applicant, with the intent of building a new 85
home on the property. He stated that the property is zoned rural residential and displayed an 86
aerial photograph of the property. He stated that the proposed split would be along the taxing 87
line with the triangle portion to be used to construct a home, if the variance is approved, and 88
the rectangular portion would become an outlot. He explained that the property owner to the 89
south also owns the rectangle portion of this property. 90
91
Murrin questioned how the sale of one parcel was processed to two buyers through the 92
County. 93
94
Finke stated that deeds were provided on each portion of the lot. He explained that the 95
proposed triangle lot would be over four acres in size, which would contain 3.5 acres of 96
contiguous suitable soils, noting that the rural residential district requires five acres of 97
contiguous suitable soils, which is why the variance is requested. He stated that 98
approximately one acre of the suitable soils lie within a driveway easement. He stated that if 99
the request moves forward, staff recommends a condition that would require the applicant to 100
address that issue and move the easement to the shared driveway rather than its current 101
location. 102
103
Reid questioned who the existing unused easement is actually for. 104
3
Finke stated that the easement is for numerous properties to the east. 105
106
Williams asked if the purpose of that easement is to provide access to Willow Drive. 107
108
Finke confirmed that the purpose of the easement is to provide access to Willow Drive to the 109
properties to the east. 110
111
Williams questioned how those properties receive access currently. 112
113
Finke stated that those properties use the existing driveway. He stated that staff has had 114
numerous conversations with the applicant as they bought the property with the home on it 115
and believed that after the home was demolished they would be able to construct a home in 116
its place. He stated that this information came to light after the home was demolished. 117
118
Williams asked when the applicant purchased the property. 119
120
Robert Buehler stated that they closed on the property in February of 2011 from a bank, as 121
the property was in foreclosure. 122
123
Finke stated that the property was owned by multiple parties after the “subdivision” was 124
done. He explained that the variance would have to be considered first because if the 125
variance is not received the Preliminary Plat could not be approved. He stated that if the 126
Commission finds the criteria for the variance to be met, a recommendation of approval 127
would be in order and staff has included potential conditions for approval in the staff report. 128
129
White questioned if there are any other lots in a similar situation, as this could set precedent. 130
131
Finke clarified similar properties to mean properties in which portions have been conveyed 132
rather than subdivided and the home demolished with the intent to build a new home. He 133
stated that he was not aware of any other properties of that nature and noted that each 134
variance request would stand on its own merit. 135
136
White asked if there were any other lot size variances in the rural residential zoning district. 137
138
Finke stated that there were some variances issued when the five-acre minimum was enacted, 139
but noted that there have not been any recent variances issued for that purpose. 140
141
Foote questioned when the minimum lot size was changed. 142
143
Finke stated that in 1999 the change was enacted which required all rural residential lots to 144
have five acres of contiguous suitable soils, and noted that previous to that there were 145
different soil groupings allowed. 146
147
Murrin received confirmation that the house that previously existing on the site predated the 148
1984 conveyance and therefore met the requirements of the district. She asked if the 149
applicant was aware that there would be an issue rebuilding a home. 150
151
Finke stated that there were conversations when the applicant received a demolition permit 152
and noted that City staff was not aware that there would be any issue rebuilding at that time 153
and therefore the applicant was not made aware that there would be any issue rebuilding a 154
home on the lot. 155
156
4
Robert Buehler, the applicant, stated that they purchased the property in early 2011 and 157
during 2011 worked with staff for demolition permits and building permits. He stated that 158
they were under the impression, as was City staff, that there would be no issues with that. He 159
stated that for reasons not related to this application they did not move forward at that time. 160
He stated that in late 2012 they discovered that the property was not properly subdivided and 161
in 2013 and 2014 worked with the neighboring parcel owner to gain their signature on the 162
application. He stated that the application was then submitted this spring to get to this point. 163
He stated that their desire is to get the property properly subdivided, as they believed it to 164
have been when they purchased it. 165
166
Murrin asked when the home was demolished. 167
168
Buehler stated that the home was demolished in 2011. 169
170
Murrin asked how the property owner was made aware of the improper division of the 171
property. 172
173
Buehler stated that they were made aware of the issue by a real estate representative of the 174
other property owner in late 2012. 175
176
Finke agreed that the issue became known through a property appraisal that was done by the 177
owner of the outlot. 178
179
Reid stated that the staff report provides the possibility of attempting to purchase additional 180
land that would then make the variance not needed and asked if the applicant had considered 181
that option. 182
183
Buehler stated that there was a property to the south of the triangle that offered to sell 184
additional land, but noted that option was not economically viable and therefore they would 185
proceed with this approach rather than purchasing additional land that they do not need. 186
187
Williams stated that it appears that there are two septic systems shown near the wetlands. 188
189
Buehler stated that he believed there to only be two delineated wetlands and noted that the 190
septic is next to where the original house had been placed and the soil testing had been done 191
to validate that could be a viable septic site. 192
193
Finke stated that is not a wetland near the septic sites, noting that the wetland is on the 194
southeast corner of the property. 195
196
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. 197
198
Kristen Chapman, 1910 Iroquois Drive, stated that she was doing research recently and noted 199
that in 1998, there was a property similar to this that requested to subdivide the property and 200
one of those lots would be nonconforming. She stated that the City did approve that under a 201
hardship clause. 202
203
Reid stated that the law around variances has changed since that time. 204
205
Steve Scherer, 2622 Willow Drive, stated that his brother and sister are also in attendance 206
representing his parent’s property at 2672 Willow Drive. He stated that they came before the 207
City in 2008 to discuss splitting the Scherer farm into two lots as the property had been 208
assessed for two lots through the road project. He stated this is a planned estate from his 209
5
parents and his family has owned the property since the turn of the 19th century. He stated 210
that in 1983 or 1984 he split off 5.2 acres from his dad’s property and in the 1990’s, prior to 211
1999 he purchased additional property from his parents, but still leaving enough for the 212
remaining property of his parents to be split into two lots. He stated that his concern is that 213
they came to the City and because of the rule change, they were short of the contiguous soils 214
requirement by ¾ of an acre, which did not take into account the road right-of-way. He 215
stated that this case has considerably less area and believed there to be a hardship in both 216
cases. He stated that the estate planning in his case had been done with the intent of creating 217
two lots and the property was assessed for the road project as two lots. He stated that his 218
mother is in a nursing home and they would like to be able to sell his parents property as two 219
lots to maximize the sale. He believed that there were similar hardships in both cases. He 220
noted that the original home on the applicant’s lot was 800 square feet and was more of a 221
cabin than a home. He stated that they did offer to sell a parcel of property to the applicant 222
which would make the applicant’s lot conforming and would also leave his family with a 223
parcel of suitable size to be sold. He stated that the applicant responded that he was not 224
interested although this would solve the problem for both cases. He stated that they are 225
attempting to play by the rules and believed that this would set a precedent. 226
227
Dale Considine, 2265 Chestnut Road, identified her property on the aerial photograph. She 228
asked for additional information on the outlot and whether it is owned by the applicant or 229
another party. 230
231
Reid stated that the outlot is currently owned by another party, but the two parcels are one lot. 232
The proposal would be to split the lots, but the variance would be needed. 233
234
Considine asked if the outlot is a buildable lot as she believed it to be only wetland. 235
236
Reid confirmed that the outlot would not be buildable. 237
238
Murrin confirmed the location of the Scherer property and that the Scherers offered to sell a 239
portion of their property to the applicant. She questioned if the applicant’s lot would then be 240
conforming if they were to purchase that parcel. 241
242
Finke stated that the land would need to be surveyed just to verify, but it appears that the 243
property could then be contiguous and therefore conforming. 244
245
Murrin questioned what the current owner is using the wetland as. 246
247
Finke stated that it is just open land and wetland. He stated that the upland portion of the 248
outlot is mostly occupied by driveway easements. 249
250
Murrin questioned how the parcel was originally conveyed, whether the land was given to 251
family members or sold. 252
253
Finke stated that the land was sold. 254
255
Buehler stated that while one viable solution would be to add some additional property the 256
offered price to them was equal to what they had paid for the entire original parcel they have 257
which did not seem to make sense financially. He stated that when they purchased the 258
property they believed it to be subdivided and buildable, as the City did. 259
Foote questioned where the original house had been and questioned if the intent would be to 260
build a similar size home or larger home. 261
262
6
Buehler stated that he believed the home would be about twice the size of the original home 263
that had been on the lot. He stated that he was unsure of the size of the original home, 264
although it had been mentioned that the home was 800 square feet. He stated that they would 265
be mindful of the appearance of the home to ensure that it would be appropriate with the 266
neighboring homes. 267
268
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. 269
270
Reid stated that if it had been known before the home was demolished that this issue existed, 271
could the property owner then have lived in the home and/or remodeled the home or added 272
onto the home. 273
274
Finke stated that the options had not been reviewed at that time. He stated that perhaps a 275
permit to expand the existing home could have been issued, but noted that he could not 276
provide an exact answer. 277
278
Williams asked if the property had been properly subdivided in the past, could the applicant 279
then have demolished the home and constructed a larger home on the site. 280
281
Finke replied that if the lot was a conforming lot of record, the existing house could be 282
demolished and a new home could be constructed. 283
284
White stated that she believed that the request meets the criteria for a variance as the situation 285
was not created by the landowner and would be a reasonable use of the property and would 286
not affect the character of the neighborhood. She stated that while she would not necessarily 287
be in favor of approving a lot that would not meet the minimum lot size for the rural 288
residential zoning district; the request appears to meet the variance criteria. 289
290
Albers agreed, as the situation was not created by the applicant and therefore would be in 291
favor of granting the variance. 292
293
Williams stated that he has a different take on the variance criteria as he was not sure that this 294
request would be in harmony with the intent of the zoning district requirements, as this parcel 295
would be half of the acreage that is required; he did not find this to be consistent with the 296
Comprehensive Plan, as the Plan has this zoned as rural residential; and while there is a 297
practical difficulty in this situation, economic considerations alone do not constitute a 298
practical difficulty, and there is additional land to the south that could be purchased, but the 299
applicant did not do so because they did not find it economical. He stated that in reference to 300
the reasonable use of the land, the applicant wants to build a house on the property and 301
reasonable use would depend on the size of the home. He noted that perhaps this variance 302
would be granted and the applicant will come back with additional variance requests because 303
of the size of the home they wish to construct and the setbacks that would be required. He 304
stated that while the property is unique and would not appear to be caused by the landowner, 305
it seems that additional work such as a title search would have been done at the time of 306
purchase and this improper subdivision would have been discovered at that time. He stated 307
that it is unfortunate that the landowner is in this situation, but a title search and title 308
insurance would have provided that clarity. He stated that if a large home is going to be built 309
in place of a small log cabin that would be very different than what existed and therefore he is 310
not persuaded that the criteria for a variance would be met, although he is sympathetic to the 311
landowner. 312
Foote referenced the reasonable use of the property and stated that if a similar home was 313
going to be constructed to what had been there before he would probably not have a problem 314
7
with that, but noted that if a large home is going to be built he did not know if that would be a 315
reasonable use. 316
317
Finke stated that the cleanest fix would be for one of the property owners to purchase the 318
other half of the lot, as the sole property owner could then build a home of their choice on the 319
lot, as the two halves together would be a buildable lot. He stated that if the Plat were 320
approved, the outlot would then be specified as unbuildable. He stated that if the property 321
remains in its current form staff could not approve a building permit for either property 322
owner. 323
324
Murrin stated that there are alternate options, as the applicant could purchase additional land 325
from the Scherer property or the two landowners of this parcel could work together under 326
common ownership. She stated that she would prefer those options be investigated before a 327
variance is considered. 328
329
Williams stated that Scherer had been shut down in the past for his request to subdivide and if 330
this variance is approved then that could set precedent. 331
332
Reid stated that the applicant bought property with a house on it with the belief that a new 333
home could be built on that lot. She stated that although a title search and additional 334
measures could have been taken, not everyone goes through those steps. She stated that if the 335
property were one lot, the property would be conforming. She noted that the outlot will never 336
be built on and therefore the net impact is the same even though there are two owners. She 337
stated that if there had not been a house on the property in the past she would not be willing 338
to grant a variance, but because the property did have a house and the property was priced in 339
a manner which conveyed that a home could be built on it, she would be in favor of granting 340
a variance. She stated that while it would be great if an alternate option could be worked out, 341
she did not believe it is the business of the Planning Commission to get into that business. 342
343
Williams received confirmation that if the landowner was able to purchase the outlot, the lot 344
could then be built upon. 345
346
Finke explained that the property was joined together prior to 1984 and therefore the lot is 347
one lot which is conforming, but is currently under the ownership of two parties. 348
349
Murrin stated that the applicant should be able to go back through to the title company with 350
their title insurance to receive possible reimbursement. 351
352
Williams stated that a homeowner should review the issue further if their plan is to purchase 353
the property with the intent of demolishing the home and building a new home and did not 354
believe that this would justify a variance. 355
356 Motion by Williams, seconded by Murrin, to recommend denial of the variance request for 357
the reasons stated. Motion failed 3-3 (Reid, White and Albers opposed). (Absent: Nolan) 358
359 Motion by White, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the variance request 360
subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Motion fails 3-3 (Murrin, Williams and 361
Foote opposed). (Absent: Nolan) 362
363
Williams asked if the Commission should still provide input on the Preliminary Plat, absent 364
the variance. 365
Finke stated that staff thought about that as well, but ultimately it was determined that the 366
Preliminary Plat could not move forward without the variance. 367
8
Foote stated that his biggest complaint is the size, as it is unknown what would be built by the 368
applicant. He stated that if the applicant were going to keep the same footprint as the former 369
home he would not have a problem with that. 370
371
Williams stated that the Preliminary Plat was within the packet that shows the subdivision of 372
the lot. He reviewed the criteria for a Preliminary Plat and stated that some of those criteria 373
are still not met even if a variance were issued. 374
375
Murrin stated that the size is the sticking point. She stated that if the item were approved by 376
the Council she would think that a size limit would need to be placed on the footprint of the 377
home as the lot size would be smaller than a typical rural residential lot. 378
379
Foote stated that if there is an existing house that burns down you are always allowed to 380
rebuild within the same footprint. 381
382
Williams asked if this is a premature Preliminary Plat as the size of the home is not known. 383
384
Finke stated that is not necessarily true and noted that a maximum size of the home could be 385
specified. 386
387
Murrin stated that it is difficult to determine if this would change the character as it is 388
unknown what the size of the home would be compared to the home that previously existed. 389
390
Reid noted that any house would change the character of the area simply because you built. 391
392
Williams questioned if Foote would be willing to change his vote on the variance if a size 393
limit was placed on the new home equal to what the original home had been. 394
395
Reid noted that would be very small. 396
397
Foote stated that this lot is half the size of a conforming lot. 398
399
Albers stated that as long as the home meets the setback requirements he did not think the 400
size of the home would make a difference. He received confirmation that there were multiple 401
structures on the lot at one time and perhaps those sizes could be combined for a total 402
footprint. 403
404
White agreed that if the setback requirements and no further variance requests were needed 405
she would not necessarily care about the size of the home. 406
407
Foote stated that he would support the variance if the footprint of the new house is no bigger 408
than the previous footprint. 409
410
Reid stated that she would not necessarily be in favor of that because of the small size 411
limitation. 412
413
Motion by Reid, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the variance request 414
subject to the conditions noted in the staff report and with the added condition limiting the 415
footprint of the house to the size of the structures previously on the property. Motion fails 3-416
3 (Murrin, Williams and Foote opposed). (Absent: Nolan) 417
7. Brian Etzel – 2942 Lakeshore Avenue – Variance from Required 30 foot Setback to 418 Expand Deck 419
White recused herself from this discussion as the property owner is her neighbor. 420
9
Finke presented a request from the applicant for a variance from the required 30-foot setback 421
to expand an existing deck. He displayed an aerial photograph of the property and described 422
the applicant’s plan to extend the deck to meet with the existing portion of the deck. He 423
explained that this would be a variance from the side setback to Balsam from 30 feet to 12 424
feet. He stated that none of the current features meet the 30-foot setback. He stated that the 425
lot is also nonconforming and explained that the existing street, Balsam, is off center to the 426
north and therefore the front appears to be setback more than other properties. He noted that 427
setback is not met either because the setback is calculated from the right-of-way. He stated 428
that if the road were to be expanded in the future it would be logical to expand to the south 429
because the road is off center. He noted that 60 foot of right-of-way while relatively standard 430
in most neighborhoods, it is unique in the Independence Beach area as some of those streets 431
have 40-foot right-of-ways. He stated that the deck expansion would not increase the 432
nonconformance of the property, it would simply add to the linear calculation. He stated that 433
if the Commission finds that the variance criteria are met, staff suggested a number of 434
conditions of approval. He stated that the hardcover for the lot is not in conformance and 435
noted that the deck would be built over some existing plastic material. He noted that the 436
plastic material could be removed in order to reduce the hardcover of the site. 437
438
Williams asked for additional information on the dimensions of the deck. 439
440
Finke provided the additional calculations for the deck. He clarified that neither the house, 441
nor the deck meets the setback requirement along Balsam and advised that the setback along 442
Lakeshore Avenue is met. 443
444
Murrin received confirmation that the deck would simply be made longer. 445
446
Brian Etzel, the applicant, stated that he was present to address any questions. He stated that 447
he purchased the home in 1986 and there was a three-season porch, which he remodeled into 448
a four-season porch. He stated that he would be amenable to working with City staff to 449
reduce the hardcover if needed. 450
451
Murrin questioned if the homeowner would get rid of the existing deck or keep the existing 452
deck. 453
454
Etzel stated that he would keep the existing deck, although replacing the lumber, and would 455
simply be extending the deck to wrap around. 456
457
Motion by Foote, seconded by Williams, to recommend approval of the 30-foot setback 458
variance request for Brian Etzel for the property located at 2942 Lakeshore Avenue based 459
upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to the conditions recommended by 460
staff. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Nolan) 461
462
White rejoined the Commission. 463
464
8. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to 465 Setbacks from Upland Wetland Buffers 466
467
Finke stated that this proposed amendment was considered before the Commission the 468
previous month, which would reduce the setback to a wetland for a deck from 15 feet to five 469
feet and the Commission recommended denial. He stated that the residents were interested in 470
alternate options and one of those options would be to reduce the setback from 15 feet to ten 471
feet rather than five feet. He asked if the Commission would be in support of this proposal. 472
473
10
Reid stated that when the 15-foot setback was set she believed that staff reviewed the 474
requirements of other cities. 475
476
Finke stated that staff did review the requirements of another city that used a wetland 477
specialist that determined that more of a setback assisted the wetland. 478
479
Reid opened the public hearing 8:38 p.m. 480
481
Charles Morris stated that he lives in the Enclave development and submitted the original 482
proposal. He stated that many of the homes in that development are laid out in a manner, 483
which would make it very difficult to construct a deck because of the location of the 484
wetlands. He stated that many of the residents would like a little more leniency, noting that 485
he would simply need two additional feet for the deck he would like to build. He stated that 486
the homeowners are not attempting to construct grandiose decks but simply a deck that 487
attaches to their home and their families could enjoy. He stated that for his property the 488
relation to the wetland is angled and if he had an additional two feet he could make the deck 489
more of a square and could simply fit his grill, patio set and some space for eight to ten 490
people. 491
492
White asked how the issue of decks was related to the homeowner when they purchased their 493
home. 494
495
Morris stated that Lennar did not go into the building requirements and deferred to the City 496
for any specifics regarding to building code conformance. He stated that the only 497
requirement from Lennar was that the deck would be submitted to them for aesthetic review. 498
499
Reid asked if the builder normally builds the deck as well. 500
501
Morris replied that it not the case. 502
503
Reid asked if all the homeowners then build their own decks. 504
505
Morris stated that he could not speak for everyone but noted that he did not receive an offer 506
or option for them to build his deck. 507
508
Reid stated that she did look at the development and some of them had decks. 509
510
Morris stated that he purchased his home two years ago and there was no option to include a 511
deck. He stated that the builder was not even willing to place the strip on the home to start 512
the deck. He noted that he was told that he would have to submit an application to Lennar 513
showing what he proposed to ensure that the deck would fit the design guidance and that the 514
permit process would go through the City. 515
516
Foote questioned how far the setback would be if the homeowner were to build the deck as he 517
desired. 518
519
Morris stated that the setback from his deck would be 13 feet as desired. He stated that ten 520
feet would be sufficient for himself, but noted that will not correct the issue of all the 521
homeowners in the development as the setback to the wetland is different for the different 522
homes. He stated that perhaps the residents and City can work together to find a setback that 523
would work for both the City and those in the development that would like to have a deck to 524
fully enjoy their property. 525
526
11
Kristin Chapman, 1910 Iroquois Drive, stated that one of the benefits of Medina is its natural 527
resources. She stated that she called the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to find out 528
additional information on setbacks, noting that there are minimal and optimal requirements. 529
She stated that the City has done a lot to be minimal rather than optimal and those changes 530
erode the natural resources that they are attempting to protect. She stated that while this may 531
not be in the interest of some homeowners, it is important to protect the natural resources. 532
533
Williams asked what the optimal setbacks would be. 534
535
Chapman stated that she did not receive that information as the staff person was going to get 536
back to her the following day. 537
538
Foote stated that he was not present at the meeting the previous month and questioned what 539
the Commission had decided. 540
541
Reid stated that the Commission recommended denial of the request. She stated that this 542
issue was discussed when the Enclave development was reviewed because of this purpose. 543
544
Murrin stated that when the Commission spoke with Kyle the previous month he had stated 545
that Lennar did tell him about the setback requirement noting that while some homeowners 546
were not informed, others were. 547
548
Chapman stated that it is the responsibility of the buyer to known their rights beforehand if 549
they plan to build a deck onto a property when they are buying the home. 550
551
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. 552
553
White stated that enforceability would also be an issue as an open deck could then transition 554
into a three season or four-season porch. 555
556
Albers stated that if the setback is reduced then the concern would be that builders would 557
build the homes even further towards the setback. 558
559
Reid stated that perhaps these homes were priced the way they were because of the 560
knowledge that it would be difficult to construct decks. 561
562
Finke provided additional information on the vegetative wetland buffer requirements of the 563
City, which range in 20 to 50 feet, and noted that there is an additional five-foot setback for 564
accessory structures and 15 feet for the principle structure. 565
566
Williams asked the rational to allow a patio to go against the buffer but not a deck. 567
568
Finke stated that the thought was that the purpose of the setback, not the buffer, is to reduce 569
the likelihood that there would be a violation in the buffer area. He stated that the wetland 570
buffer easement is fairly restrictive on what can be done. 571
572
Reid asked and received confirmation that you do not have to pull a permit for a patio while 573
you do need a permit to construct a deck. 574
575
Albers asked and received confirmation that a permit would be necessary to change a deck to 576
a three-season porch. 577
578
12
Williams stated that while the setback is an arbitrary line that the City draws, they drew the 579
line at 15 feet, and residents of Lennar should have been made aware of the issue when they 580
purchased their home. He stated that if they were not told, they should take that up with 581
Lennar. 582
583
Murrin stated that she also feels that it is important to preserve the greenspace in Medina as 584
there is more and more pressure for development. She stated that the Commission has only 585
heard from two people, one last week and one the previous month, so perhaps the issue is not 586
as important as it is being made to seem to those other people. She stated that perhaps a 587
variance request should be made by the residents so that a decision could be made on a case 588
by case basis rather than applying a standard across the board. 589
590
Reid stated that perhaps she would be willing to decrease the setback by a few feet, but she 591
definitely would not want covered decks. 592
593
Albers stated that he would be more comfortable with each individual coming forward rather 594
than applying a lesser standard across the board. 595
596
Reid asked how residents would even gain a variance for a deck. 597
598
Finke agreed that it would be difficult to obtain a variance for a deck. 599
600 Motion by Williams, seconded by Murrin, to recommend denial of an Ordinance 601
amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code related to setbacks from upland wetland buffers. 602
Motion approved 5-1 (Reid opposed). (Absent: Nolan) 603
604
Reid stated that she would be comfortable with a 12 or 13-foot setback and thinks it would be 605
difficult for residents to obtain a variance for a deck, which is why she opposed the vote. 606
607
9. Council Meeting Schedule 608 609
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting on August 18th and Williams volunteered to 610
attend. 611
612
10. Adjourn 613
614 Motion by White, seconded by Murrin, to adjourn the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Motion carried 615
unanimously. 616
3 Rivers Church Page 1 of 4 September 8, 2015
Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: September 2, 2015
MEETING: September 8, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: 3 Rivers Church–Conditional Use Permit – 52 Hamel Road – Public Hearing
Summary of Request
3 Rivers Church has requested a conditional use permit to operate in an existing office building
at 52 Hamel Road. The applicant proposes to office within the existing office space and also to
assemble within an existing gathering space in the subject property.
No improvements are proposed to accommodate the use, and the applicant proposes to use the
existing building as-is. As such, this review will not cover common matters such as building
dimensions, setbacks, building materials, landscaping and the like.
The subject property is zoned Uptown Hamel-2, in which religious institutions are an allowed
conditional use. Surrounding uses are predominantly commercial, with offices to the east and
west and Inn Kahoots and the American Legion to the south. Railroad right-of-way is located to
the north at the bottom of a steep slope. An aerial of the site can be found below.
3 Rivers Church Page 2 of 4 September 8, 2015
Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
Analysis
The applicant proposes to rent some of the existing office space at the property for their offices
and to assemble in the “multi-purpose room” for services. These services are proposed to occur
outside of the hours of operation of JT Miller, who occupies the remaining office space in the
building.
The maximum occupancy of the room proposed for assembly is 60. Staff believes the scale of
the proposed use (especially considered separate from the primary office use of the site) will not
introduce land use or transportation concerns.
The Building Official has requested a “code analysis” to confirm if a second direct exit is
required to be provided.
Parking
City code would require 1 parking space per 3 occupants. This would result in 20 required off-
street parking spaces for the assembly use. There is area for 17 off-street parking spaces on the
property, which is slightly less than would be required based on the maximum occupancy of the
room, let alone the remaining office space within the building.
The Uptown Hamel zoning districts do permit some flexibility from off-street parking
requirements. According to Section 834.1.07, Subd 2. (a), “Flexibility in the number of required
off-street parking spaces and loading facilities is allowed in the Uptown Hamel-1 district
because: 1) many parcels were developed prior to enactment of parking and loading
requirements; 2) some parcels are small; 3) some parcels have little open space; and 4) there is a
need to retain continuity of buildings fronting on Hamel Road and in the future on Sioux Drive,
and there is a preference for “infill” on Hamel Road to be buildings, not parking lots or
structures. In providing this flexibility, the city will consider the use and need for parking, the
amount of off-street parking that is being provided, the amount of nearby on-street parking, any
nearby public parking lots, peak parking demands for the use, joint use of parking facilities, and
other relevant factors. In granting a parking reduction, concern for the overall benefits to the
Uptown Hamel district will be considered as well as use and enjoyment of adjacent properties
and economic impacts.”
The applicant proposes to only have larger assemblies outside of the operating hours of the office
on the site. As a result, staff believes it is reasonable to not consider the parking needs of the
office and the assembly use simultaneously. While the site does have three fewer off-street
parking spaces than would be required for the assembly use, staff believes this amount is
reasonable based on the flexibility allowed in Uptown Hamel. There are three parking spaces
along Hamel Road on the adjacent site to each side and an addition three spaces across Hamel
Road. The public parking lot on Mill Drive is also within 800 feet.
Specific CUP Standards
The Uptown Hamel zoning districts establish the following specific criteria for religious
institutions:
i) Shared parking options shall be considered when a proposed expansion requires
more off-street parking.
3 Rivers Church Page 3 of 4 September 8, 2015
Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
ii) The site plan shall provide for adequate parking and traffic circulation including a
plan for formation and movement of a funeral procession.
As noted above, the applicant is essentially proposing shared parking by only assembling in non-
office hours. Staff believes the applicant has submitted sufficient information related to parking
and traffic circulation based on the reduced scale of the proposed use.
CUP Review Criteria
Section 825.39 of the City Code states that the City shall consider the following matters when
reviewing CUPs, in addition to the “effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals,
and general welfare.” Staff has provided a potential finding behind each criterion.
That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the immediate vicinity.
Staff does not believe the proposed use will have negative impacts on surrounding
property or owners. The proposed use is an allowed conditional use in the district.
That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
Staff does not believe the proposed use will impede surrounding development.
That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
Staff does not believe the proposed use changes the utility or transportation impact of
the property.
That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking
and loading space to serve the proposed use.
As noted above, while the site does not include the required amount of off-street
parking, flexibility is permitted in Uptown Hamel area. Staff recommends a condition
that large assemblies occur outside of regular office hours so that the uses in the
building can share parking. With this arrangement and existing on-street parking,
staff believes adequate parking is available.
That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor,
fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to
control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring
properties will result.
Staff does not believe that the proposed use will introduce any of these concerns.
The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of
the City and to the existing land use.
Staff does not believe the proposed use will have negative impacts on surrounding
property or owners. The proposed use is an allowed conditional use in the district.
3 Rivers Church Page 4 of 4 September 8, 2015
Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The proposed use is an allowed conditional use in the district.
The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City.
Staff does not believe the proposed use conflicts with the policies of the City.
The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Staff does not believe the proposed use will cause traffic concerns, especially with the
limitations proposed by the applicant.
Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or
general unsightliness.
Staff does not believe that the proposed use will introduce any of these concerns.
The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
The applicant proposes to commence the use immediately upon approval.
The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer.
The owner of the property is a co-applicant and proposes to lease the space to 3
Rivers Church.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions:
1. Assemblies greater than 10 people shall not occur during business hours of the
primary office use operating on the property.
2. Assemblies shall not exceed 60 people, except larger special events shall be
permitted no more than four times per year with prior approval of a Special
Event permit and only if consistent with building code requirements.
3. The Applicant shall implement active measures to encourage parking within off-
street parking locations.
4. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the Building Official.
5. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the
City for the cost of reviewing the conditional use permit.
Attachments
1. List of Document
2. Building Official Comments
3. Applicant Narrative
4. Existing site plan
5. Existing floor plan
Project: LR‐15‐163 – 3 Rivers Church CUP The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 8/13/20158/13/20153 Application Y Fee 8/13/20158/13/20151 Fee Y $2000 Mailing Labels 8/13/20158/12/20155 MailingLabels Y Narrative 8/13/2015N/A 1 Narrative Y Plan Set 8/13/2015Varies 6 Plans Y Survey; Site Plans; Floor Plans Driveway Easement 8/13/20156/25/20026 Driveway Easement Y Includes plat resolution Parking Agreement 8/13/20151/24/20116 Parking Agreement Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 8‐20‐2015 1 EngComments‐08‐20‐2015 Legal Comments 8‐24‐2015 1 LegalComments‐08‐24‐2015 Building Official Comments 9‐1‐2015 1 BuildingComments‐09‐01‐2015 Public Comments
Wealshire of Medina Page 1 of 3 September 8, 2015
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: September 2, 2015
MEETING: September 8, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Wealshire of Medina – Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit – PID 03-118-23-24-0003
Background
Earlier in the year, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed rezoning, site plan review
and interim use permit for the Wealshire of Medina at the northwest corner of Mohawk Drive
and Chippewa Road. The Commission recommended approval of the requests.
The request was for construction of a 171,392 s.f. one story, 150-resident memory care facility.
The applicant has subsequently altered the site plan and adjusted the layout of the proposed
structure. The size of the structure did not change significantly, but rather the location of the
structure on the lot. The applicant also proposes more surface parking and less underground
parking.
The updated layout increased the proposed wetland impacts from 23,086 square feet to 59,844
square feet. The applicant proposes to mitigate the wetlands on-site, which will result in a net
increase of wetlands because of the 2:1 replacement requirements.
The updated site plan shifts the building away from the western lot line, pushing it further to the
south. Staff does not believe the amended building layout significantly affect most of the aspects
of the initial review. The most significant change is the increased wetland impacts, which are
now proposed to be mitigated on-site.
However, staff wanted to present the updated site plan to the Planning Commission to see if it
has any effect on the earlier recommendation.
Updated Site Plan
The following table summarizes the requirements of the BP district and the proposed updated
site plan. The proposed construction appears to meet all of the dimensional standards, provided
a 70% opaque landscaping screen is provided along the north and west (residential zoning
districts).
Wealshire of Medina Page 2 of 3 September 8, 2015
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
Business Park Requirement Proposed
Minimum Lot Area 3 acres 17.59 acres
Minimum Lot Width 200 feet 1413 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet 2608 feet
Minimum Front Yard Setback 50 feet 90 feet
Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback 30 feet 137 feet (west)
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 75 feet (north)
Street Setback 50 feet 90 feet
Setback from Residential 100 feet; or 75 feet (w/ 70%
opaque landscaping)
75 feet
Minimum Parking Setbacks
Front Yard
Rear/Interior Side Yards
Residential
35 feet
20 feet
100 ft;or 60 (w/ 70% opaque)
35 feet
60 feet
60 feet
Maximum Impervious Surface 70% 23.6%
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at their February meeting. Following
discussion, the Commission recommended approval with the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall construct the improvements as displayed on the plans received by the
City 1/30/2015, except as modified herein.
2) This approval shall be valid for one calendar year for Phase I and three calendar years for
Phase II. The applicant may request a permit to construct Phase II within this time frame
without obtaining Site Plan Review approval.
3) This approval is contingent upon approval of a wetland replacement plan for wetland
impacts. As part of this review, the applicant shall examine means to reduce impacts and
implement those that are practical.
4) The applicant shall grant an additional 3 feet of right-of-way to the City as well as
easements over all public utility improvements.
5) The applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer dated 2/4/2015.
6) The applicant shall update the landscaping plan to identify landscaping for Phase II
consistent with City requirements but would not be required to be installed until
construction of Phase II takes place.
7) Upland buffers shall be established fully around all wetland areas, including required
vegetation, signage and easements.
8) If the applicant does not use the property south of the wetland for agriculture, the area
shall be vegetated and maintained in order to prevent erosion.
9) No tree planting has been required for the area south of the wetland. This area shall be
landscaped consistent with City requirements upon future development.
10) Plans shall be updated so that stormwater improvements are not located on top of public
sanitary sewer or water improvements.
11) In lieu of constructing improvements to Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road to support
the proposed development, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City
related to proportionate contributions to future improvement projects.
Wealshire of Medina Page 3 of 3 September 8, 2015
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
12) The applicant shall obtain necessary approvals and permits from the Elm Creek
Watershed, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of
Health, and other relevant agencies.
13) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the site plan and other relevant documents.
14) Agricultural use of the property south of the wetland may be continued as an Interim Use
until the earliest of the following:
a. Subdivision of the subject property
b. Construction of any structure on the portion of the property south of the wetland
Attachments
1) Applicant Narrative
2) Updated site plan received by the City 8/11/2015
3) Plans received by the City 1/30/2015
3701 12th Street North, Suite 206St. Cloud, MN 56303
Phone 320-253-9495Fax320-253-87371-800-270-9495
UPDATED 8-11-2015
TASK 1 Background/Demographic1.1 Demographic Info1.2 Finalize Schedule TASK 2 Public Participation2.1 Finalize Public Participation Plan2.2 Medina Celebration Day 2.3 Community Visioning Meeting 2.4 Steering CommitteeSteering Committee #42.5 Interagency Coordination 2.6 Online Engagement (my sidewalk)2.7 Planning Commission/City Council Joint PC/CC WorksessionTASK 3 Land Use & Housing3.1 Compile DataRefined Concept Finalize LU Plan 3.2 Create Goals & Implementation Steps 3.3 Draft of overall chapter, one revision, compilation of final document TASK 4 Transportation 4.1 Compile Data 4.2 Prepare Future Traffic Volumes4.3 Prepare Roadway System Plan 4.4 Prepare Transit Information4.5 Prepare Ped. & Bike Plan4.6 Provide Aviation Basic Language 4.7 Provide Freight Section Language4.8 Provide language regarding a healthy environment for transportation4.9 One draft plan and one revision4.10 GIS Maps TASK 5 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Component 5.1 Compile relevant documents5.2 Update capacity analysis 5.3 Complete goals & implementation steps5.4 GIS Maps TASK 6 Comprehensive Water Plan6.1 Compile relevant documents6.2 Update previously completed model 6.3 Complete goals & implementation steps 6.4 GIS MapsTASK 7 Parks, Trails, Open Space7.1 Update existing maps 7.2 Establish goals and implementation steps7.3 Coordinate with other agencies (SEE ABOVE)7.4 GIS Maps 7.5 Summary map of other outside planned investments7.6 Attend Parks Commission Meeting TASK 8 Surface Water Management Plan8.1 Compilation of drainage information8.2 Establishment of goals & implementation steps 8.3 Exhibits TASK 9 Other Required Components 9.1 Met Council Compile Impacts of LU PlanCompile impacts of LU Plan Compile impacts of LU PlanTransportation Modeling Sewer Model Water Modeling September 2016Joint PC/CC WorksessionLand Use ConceptLg Com. Meeting(LU PLAN)January 20164 Interagency Meetings CC Final Presentation PC Public Hearing my Sidewalk Steering Committee #3October 2015November 2015 December 2015Steering Committee #2Lg. Com. Visioning Session Steering Committee #6August 2016July 2015Celebration DayFinalize Public Participation Plan February 2016March 2016April 2016 May 2016June 2016 July 2016August 2015 September 2015Steering Committee #1(On LU Plan )Demographic InfoFinalize ScheduleSteering Committee #5
2040 Comp Plan Page 1 of 2 September 1, 2015
Process/Schedule City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: August 27, 2015
MEETING: September 1, 2015 City Council
SUBJ: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Process/Schedule
Background
Later in September, the Metropolitan Council will be releasing System Statements for
communities throughout the metro. This will trigger the requirement that the City submit a
decennial update of its Comprehensive Plan by the end of 2018.
Staff has been discussing the process and tentative schedule for the update process. It appeared
from discussions during the amendment completed at the end of last year that almost everyone
wanted to complete the decennial update as quickly as possible. As such, staff’s draft schedule is
fairly aggressive, seeking to have the update submitted for review in approximately a year (fall
of 2016).
A draft schedule is attached. Breanne Rothstein from WSB and Associates will be coordinating
much of the public participation process and has recommended the attached schedule. She is
experienced in coordinating this process in various communities and WSB is able to provide
online public participation tools.
Public Participation
The proposed public participation (not including worksessions, etc.) includes the following:
Online participation throughout process
“Kick-off” event at Medina Celebration Day
2 community meetings
o 1 concentrating on visioning and goal setting
o 1 to solicit feedback on draft land use plan
Formal public hearing at Planning Commission
In addition to these opportunities, there will be more formal worksessions and steering
committee meetings throughout the process. These are described in the schedule, and generally
include:
6 steering committee meetings
2 joint planning commission/city council meetings
Formal public hearing at Planning Commission
City Council review
If the City Council is interested in holding more community meetings (or considering
neighborhood meetings, etc.), worksessions, and the like, it would take more time and the
Agenda Item # 9C
2040 Comp Plan Page 2 of 2 September 1, 2015
Process/Schedule City Council Meeting
schedule would need to be expanded accordingly. Staff believes that a longer process will tend
to discourage involvement over time, even if there are more meetings and events that people
would be able to attend, as people tend to get “worn out by the process.” The proposed schedule
is based on this premise.
Steering Committee
The Comprehensive Plan is a large and complex document. Although staff intends to take the
lead in drafting the document, staff believes it is important that policy direction throughout the
process will be provided by a representative group of City residents.
The Planning Commission could serve this role, but it is a lot to ask of all of the Commissioners
who will also have the regular Planning Commission duties to attend to. Doing so also does not
encourage new people to become active in the process.
As an alternative, the City Council could appoint a steering committee to provide direction
throughout the process. This group would present a draft for formal Planning Commission and
City Council review. Staff recommends that any such committee be a manageable size, ideally 7
members, perhaps 9. Staff believes it may be advisable to include 1 or 2 members from the City
Council and Planning Commission on the steering committee and potentially a park
commissioner. Remaining positions could be appointed by the City Council in order to provide
adequate representation.
If the City Council intends to appoint a Steering Committee, staff would seek direction on how it
will be constituted. Staff would also seek direction on how to solicit members. The City
Council could review “applications” or staff could provide a slate of interested persons. As
noted above, staff would recommend a committee similar to:
2 Council members
2 Planning Commissioners
1 Park Commissioner
2 At-large members
Council Direction Requested
Staff seeks approval of the proposed process and schedule to update the Comprehensive Plan as
described on the attached document.
Staff also seeks direction on the potential appointment of a Comprehensive Plan Steering
Committee to provide direction during the process.
Attachment
DRAFT Schedule