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