Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-05-1998, Comp planNOTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEETING AUGUST 5, 1998 - 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS LENNY LEUER, BRUCE WORKMAN, FRANK MIGNONE, CAROLYN SMITH, KATHY COOK AND ELIZABETH WEIR. ALSO PRESENT MAYOR JOHN FERRIS, COUNCILOR JIM JOHNSON AND CITY CLERK PAUL ROBINSON. Planning commission chair Lenny Leuer introduced the agenda for the meeting, stating that this was an opportunity for the residents, landowners and businesses to have input on proposed zoning changes that the planning commission is considering recommending for inclusion in the city's comprehensive plan. There will also be two future opportunities for input: 1 - Public hearing on the comprehensive plan and 2 - city council meeting. UPTOWN HAMEL AREA Marilyn Fortin, 365 Comanche Trail, had questions about the houses in the commercial district in the Hamel area - west of the church - if a house burns down, can it be rebuilt. It was stated that if a house was more than 50% destroyed by fire or wind it could not be rebuilt. M. Fortin and two other property owners indicated interest in leaving the zoning as is - to retain the option of selling to a business. There would remain an issue if a buyer wishes to remain residential; as non -conforming, mortgages would be difficult to get. There were additional comments on the same subject. Charles Chrest, 36 Hamel Road, asked if uptown Hamel zone is a change. Paul Robinson said that the area is now urban commercial and the residential property is legal non -conforming and would remain legal non -conforming in new zoning. A resident asked for clarification of the concept to link the uptown Hamel area and Cherry Hill - commissioners explained. Mayor John Ferris expressed concern that the issues that may affect homeowners should be carefully reviewed. Charles Chrest, 36 Hamel Road, raised concerns about the variability in property lines - which makes imposing set -backs difficult. Carolyn Smith said that the commission hopes to preserve the charming nature of the uptown Hamel area buildings. 1 The commission's goal is to keep the current small town character, not impose large set -backs on small lots. Commission members asked if anyone was opposed to the concept of an uptown Hamel zoning area. No one responded. The homeowners west of uptown Hamel will be contacted to discuss impact of existing and alternative zoning options. A resident asked if business owners have been talked with. The commission members shared that business owners were invited to a meeting this past winter and all received notice of tonight's meeting. FOXBERRY FARMS BUFFER ZONE Paul Robinson reviewed the current zoning and development. Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, asked for clarification of wetland/unbuildable areas. The proposed zoning change was explained, the concept of MR and a buffer zone was explained. The concept of a `guide plan' was explained - where the city wants to be. Stuart Ackman, said Wallace Doerr and developer Mr. Kimmes, who he was representing, hoped there would not be a preconception of the type of development that could occur on their property. Jim Bergstrand, Foxberry Farms, asked if all is zoned UC/UI, what restrictions are there, i.e.; building height, set -backs, etc. Lenny Leuer said all UC/UI developments are required to have a conditional use permit with where many conditions are under the control of the city such as traffic flow, lighting, setbacks, noise, erosion, etc. MR1 - intent is low density, no more than 6 units/acre, but may be 2-3 units - height is limited to 30' due to volunteer fire department. Traffic question - south border MR1 - Meander Lane - considering extending to the west - not considering linking to Foxberry Kristin Johnson, 905 Foxberry Farms Road, - 116 - traffic is heavy - travel more than 55 MPH - if 180 additional homes are built with access to 116 with no change in the traffic flow - there will be a problem. She said that she spoke with 18 of the 19 homeowners in her area and all are opposed to a buffer zone - she also learned that current their developer may be interested in MR1 area if developed - which could tie into traffic into the road in Foxberry. 2 Concerns were also raised about water capacity - some residents were experiencing brown water - also concerned about property values - She said on behalf of the 18 homeowners with whom she spoke all would prefer a light commercial development with a landscape buffer. Marc Anderson, 945 Foxberry Farms Rd. and also VP of land development for Lundgren Brothers, said the current Lundgren Brothers development consists of 200 acres with 134 lots, each lot averages about 2/3 of an acre. He said that Lundgren bermed with the idea that a UC/UI development would be constructed. They were not able to berm the wetland area. He said that Lundgren Bros. has been anticipating an industrial/commercial development and believes that a development consisting of 180 units on 30 acres would be a major mistake. He said a well designed industrial/office area is preferable. Kristin Johnson said in her area there are 40 kids most under the age of 6. She said traffic is a concern. She said that increased traffic could not be handled safely. Residents liked the UC/UI zoning - less noise, lights, traffic, and closed on weekends. Lenny Leuer reminded - UC/UI allows for 24 hour usage - diesel trucks, etc. Mike Ferguson, 4455 Shorewood Trail, a buffer = space - he suggested that the city should buy the property and make it a park. He said if the city ties the road into Foxberry roads he feels that they should pay a portion of the Foxberry association costs. He did not want to look at townhomes. City staff explained that a road easement is a normal course of action - without an intent to build a road - easier to abandon an easement that get a road later - at time of development unit numbers could have been higher - possibly requiring additional road Mayor Ferris said the city has a no growth policy and is not in the business of development. We are here tonight to gather input the city council has not been directive on these issues and will support the wishes of the residents. The question was raised who asked for the buffer Bruce Workman explained the planning commission was responding to a sense from residents that they were interested in lessening the impact of UC/UI on adjacent residences. Mr. Ciora complained about the Flagship development - wants to see a plan of what is coming - why not extension of Foxberry Farms? Bruce Workman said the development of a large warehouse development close to Foxberry is how the buffer discussion got started 3 Kristin Johnson - what about townhouses being buffered? Mayor Ferris said there is some negotiation on how a property is used between the city and the developer Dave Klaiman, 950 Sunset Court, what the MR1 proposed land was currently zoned RC/UC/UI? He was told that it was currently zoned RR - rural residential Paul Robinson said when someone comes in to develop that land, it will probably be re- zoned according to the proposed development and according to the guide plan in the city's comprehensive plan Mayor Ferris - said that RR was the most restrictive zoning possible Dave Klaiman - why not leave it as RR Mayor Ferris said the issue is the owner of the land Dave Klaiman - weighing interests of 1 owner over many residents Mayor Ferris - said the city council looks at best use of the property - you may come to the public meeting Stuart Ackman said the owners position is to leave it as it is currently guided in the comprehensive plan. He said when sewer was installed up to Foxberry Farms this property was assessed for commercial/industrial sewer. The owner wants to recapture that money Richard Theis, 805 Meander Road, a 15 year resident, said he never wanted the Foxberry development with the 200 extra people. He said if there needs to be housing of this type in Medina why not put it in a better place. He said they are not likely to go through wetlands. Becky Hoveida, 4375 Shorewood Trail, if you have multi -family you have more traffic. She said you also have more traffic with Ul. She has teenagers- driving will be problem for children - traffic on 116 is already a problem - she would prefer single family zoning at lower level (price) Mayor Ferris - city not interested in layering housing development by price - that's high density - I prefer to leave things alone - I also feel that property owners have a fundamental right to pursue best use of his property Kristen Johnson said she appreciated being notified of meeting. 4 James Peterson, 812 Meander Road, said he is glad Medina is not in favor of growth - spoke strongly against Foxberry at the time - insulted by concept of his home being a buffer - he said leave it Rural Residential. Chris Rahn, 900 Sunset Court, said that could be left commercial or MR1 with up to 6/acre Mayor Ferris said the city is not interested in high density or scaling economics. BUFFER AREA SOUTH OF CHERRY HILL Paul Robinson reviewed the current zoning and explained the definition of PUD. He said it would provide the city and the developer with greater flexibility Carolyn Smith explained that the proposed frontage road is in anticipation of Trunk Highway 55 becoming so busy direct access to 55 will not be allowed Dave Polovitz, 259 Cherry Hill Trail, said if access to 55 is limited how will that impact businesses All new business development must have an alternative access road Tom Olson, 275 Cherry Hill Trail, asked what the motivation was to make it a PUD vs. Urban commercial. He asked if someone wanted to enhance the probability of the property being developed - if PUD makes it more developable Lenny Leuer - PUD - contract between developer and city - there needs to be underlying zoning that guides the use - PUD gives the city more flexibility Mayor Ferris - PUD is designed to give the city more control over what happens it is not meant to encourage development Bruce Workman - this PUD gives the city best chance of making a good fit with what is already in the area. Lenny Leuer said that they were considering changing MR to UR on the golf course property Kathy Cook - said this gives the city more control Richard Hoelzel, 297 Cherry Hill Bay, said his property has direct view of the `mixed use' area. He said the owner has had hard time selling - possibly due to high price? - He said when the gas station was proposed residents were told the structure height would be limited. He said they tricked us by raising the height of the lot. 5 He thanked the commission for seeking input - don't want to be in Brooklyn Park type city - "town house city" - single family dwellings being kept down. He said the new expensive single family homes in Plymouth near Cub values were severely diminished when the townhomes across from them were developed. He said this is a suburban neighborhood with a country view - now we see a gas station out our windows. David Ferin, 287 Cherry Hill Trail, he said the drawback mixed use PUD lot is quite high. He said the goal should be to lower the lot down. He said that would help address sound and lighting buffer. He asked is there was a way to discuss bringing grade level down (very expensive) Mary Pieschel, 263 Cherry Hill Trail, said that traffic is still a problem. Shelly Halford, 237 Cherry Hill Alcove, she said commercial zoning could be and office park, retail, she was uncomfortable with mixed PUD if it opened up the possibility of town homes. She asked what types of structures are open under PUD Bruce Workman said town homes were a possibility Lenny Leuer read the letter from W.H. Cates Construction company - they want zoning to remain UC/UI Ramona Steadman, 210 Cherry Hill Trail, could current MR be changed to Urban Recreational - but leave the other parcel as is - urban commercial Richard Hoelzel - if mixed use - does it open it up to greater MR use (yes) - density, not necessarily - needs to meet approval of the city - He said the city can restrict amount of sewer usage - no more sewer units than would be available now. He said that the water pressure at times is questionable - additional residents could impact that Lee Solheim, 243 Cherry Hill Alcove, - mixed use PUD vs. PUD - what gives us more control - a lot of residents surprised by height of gas station - height is an issue The planning commission said they are trying to be more proactive - getting input from residents and landowners Lenny Leuer -we will need to define mixed use - setbacks, # of units, association, etc. Paul Robinson said that the current PUD ordinance would allow mixed use, but is not stated as such. Mitch Falink, 311 Cherry Hill Bay, portion above wetland - is that buildable - Carolyn Smith said with sewer it could be built Mitch Falink - any other mixed use proposals? 6 Bruce Workman said he would like to see an office park Mitch Falink - time line on road? Bruce Workman - not soon - - - Mitch Falink - city might be feeling pressure from Met council to provide multi family affordable - are we creating mixed use for affordable housing? Carolyn Smith - not talking about low income housing Bruce Workman - how about a well maintained home for elderly? Rich Hoelzel - if changed to mixed use - we'd need a lot of meetings Carolyn Smith - said we would deal with one parcel at a time Joe Raskob said we own the property north of the ballroom - their sense is that people are interested in office/warehouse use - nice looking commercial buildings - minimal traffic Tom Tart, property owner, said possibly a nicely planned strip mall. He asked if they can we have some input into the definition of mixed use PUD - (yes - stay involved) Karen - - - - a warehouse is 25' of security lights - we have a backyard full of lights - she said it would be ok if you think it is in our best interests to change to a mixed use PUD. She was glad that the city let us into Cherry Hill. She said if she owned the property she would want to be able to develop the property - - , - I'm more against rental than multi - family Lenny Leuer - we'll have more public hearings with you, the landowners Joe Raskob - PUD suits me NORTHERN PORTION OF HOLASEK PROPERTY Paul Robinson - MR1 was thought of here because of its proximity to the park and to Uptown Hamel. The current density proposed would be up to 6 units per acre Dick Townsend, 650 Navajo Road, can MR be townhomes - answer, yes Bonnie Shallbetter, 3375 Hunter Drive, Hunter Drive is busy - traffic a problem - how can Hunter cope with traffic? - lot of people use it for jogging and biking. 7 Scott Oare, 150 Navajo Road, said the 156 homes could be built on this property? There would probably be no more than 60 sewer units for that property Harriet Holasek, 3212 Hunter Drive, said that they had asked for sewer. Asked for it repeatedly - now getting recognition - her idea was to sell whole farm - I don't care what happens - I have buildings along the proposed MR1 parcel line. She asked if the property was re -zoned if her taxes would go up? Frank Mignone said no - if property is green acres - it stays the same Bruce Workman - this property can develop in less dense development Carolyn Smith - as MR we can define it as 2 or 3 units per acre - makes more sense for more units next to the park. Scott Oare wanted to know who initiated this idea Judy Herwig, 9410 Fox Valley, Corcoran, said that she owned land abutting the south portion of the park. She asked how her property would be zoned Bruce Workman said there was no thought beyond the area included in the MR1 change. , how many sewer units assigned to that area Paul Robinson said that the city's total remaining capacity was 120,000 gallons per day Lenny Leuer - said the city has used over half of its sewer capacity. Frank Mignone - how many sewer units to the property Carolyn Smith - how do you define MR1 - Lenny and I push for 3 units per acre Jim Johnson, council member, said the sewer was originally planned for on this property - then the sewer got pushed up to Lundgren. He said the current MR zoning allows up to 18 units per acre - maybe we should develop urban commercial around the park - he asked Mrs. Holasek what her opinion was. Jim Jurma, 25 Navajo Road E., he said right now the area of the park along Brockton Lane was developed as much as possible Bruce Workman - nice when landowners come and ask for change - there will not be mammoth apartment building on this property - that is a misconception 8 Mickey Elfenbein, 2872 Trappers Trail, asked why there was an MR1 - why not SR or 1 per acre - let's start out with something to protect us Bruce Workman - Met Council asks for a good plan that includes all facets of housing Carolyn Smith - I don't want to see more 850,000 to 1,000,000 houses. Mickey Elfenbein said he would be against the MR1 zoning. Roberts, 3310 Red Fox Drive, - said his area as a minimum lot size of 2 1/2 acres His concern was with high density housing in that area Mark Sivits, 3475 Hunter Drive, asked how will Hunter and Medina Roads would cope with the extra traffic if there was an MR1 designation. He asked if the city was going to continue the sidewalk to Hamel Bonnie Shallbetter - said she put together a petition for a sidewalk. She was told the park had first priority Jim Johnson - Said Hunter was built narrow to slow down traffic. He said it will be widened with a wider shoulder Jim Jurma - it doesn't sound bad - a path without people is not a path - if not too dense MR1 zoning is all right. John Raskob, 345 Comanche Trail, any plan on extending Comanche Trail Lenny Leuer - said looped roads are easier to maintain Jim Johnson if you look at Comanche it was planned to go through - chances of it being extended are low Meeting ended about 10:30 p.m. 9