HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-13-2009Medina Planning Commission October 13, 2009 Meeting Minutes
CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
1. Call to Order: Commissioner Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners, Jim Simons, Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, Michele Litts,
Charles Nolan, and Kent Williams.
Absent: Beth Nielsen
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne, and
Stephen Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda:
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings:
Weir presented the update that the Council:
The Council:
- approved a final draft of the Local Surface Water Management Plan;
approved the five sections of the sewered residential ordinance, as recommended by the
Planning Commission, and adding EIFS as an accent material, increasing the possible
pitch of roofs up to 35 feet if there is sprinkling, as long as the eave height is no greater
than 32 feet, and reduced the setback to the side yard buffer to 10 feet in R 4 and 5;
reviewed the letter that will go to all residents, regarding the 2010 budget, that proposes
a one percent tax levy increase;
- directed staff to draw up a resolution for a two-year delay of the closure of access to the
Ace in -line shops across the median strip on County Road 101;
- approved a landscaping master plan for Hamel Legion Park;
- directed staff to prepare a contract for construction of the Uptown Hamel monument sign;
- had an initial overview of the Business Park Zoning Ordinance and discussed increasing
the minimum lot size back to five acres in BP, with a three acre minimum in integrated
development;
- increased the maximum driveway width at the curb from 22 feet to 24 feet, with 28 foot
flair at the property line. All non -conforming driveways will be grandfathered in;
gratefully recognized the many Medina Celebration Day volunteers and contributors, and
the Field House Task Force volunteers.
1
Medina Planning Commission October 13, 2009 Meeting Minutes
4. Planning Department Report:
Finke updated the Commission on possible land use projects forthcoming and ordinance
amendments they can expect to see this year.
5. Approval of September 8, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes:
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Williams to approve the September 8, 2009 minutes with
recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen)
6. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of Medina's City Code creating
new zoning regulations for future development on property identified in the Mixed Use
land use in the City's 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Grittman provided background in the shaping of the Mixed Use District and how some existing
zoning regulations were imported into the proposed draft ordinance. Buffering standards were
incorporated, differing from the City's existing buffering requirements. The Mixed Use District
is proposed to be lateral rather than vertical in design. He further explained the process requiring
the following three stages:
Stage I Plan Establishes:
• land use patterns
• developable land
• development capacities
• public uses
• infrastructure
• vehicle pedestrian circulation
• other generalized site analysis
• conceptual development parameters
• recordable document
Stage II Plan Establishes:
• recordable plat
• recordable development agreement
• provides development details
Stage III Plan establishes a staff level review of final plans from Stage II development
documents, which requires recording.
R. Reid asked if the mixed use district was residential, commercial, or both. Finke and Grittman
both explained the mixed use business would accommodate both residential and business.
V. Reid asked for clarification of flexibility within the mixed use district. Grittman explained
the flexibility aspect meant it would allow a variety of uses and developers would be able to
2
Medina Planning Commission October 13, 2009 Meeting Minutes
respond to market demands. The Comprehensive Plan has certain expectations related to
housing that would need to be followed. Williams asked if residential was proposed to have a
minimum of 50 percent within a land use application. Grittman concurred. Williams asked for
an explanation of the difference between a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the proposed
mixed use district. Williams asked if the process would be less flexible yet provide more
certainty to a developer. Grittman said from a procedural aspect it would be similar to a PUD.
The specifics of the proposed ordinance relate more to the internal requirements of the district.
For example if a project was proposed under the ordinance the underlying use would have to
follow the specific regulations for the use. If it were PUD the developer could request to not
meet certain ordinance requirements and provide something to the City in exchange.
V. Reid asked if vertical development was part of the district. Grittman explained vertical is not
the intention.
R. Reid asked about coffee shops and retail uses. Finke clarified retail type uses would be
allowed even though they aren't specifically listed.
Public Hearing was opened at 7:44 p.m.
John Raskob of 345 Comanche Trail spoke before the Commission voicing concern of density
and future process within the proposed district. He explained his past experience with the City
has been costly without approvals. He wanted to make sure whatever is adopted will be
developer friendly and provide guidance. Grittman explained density would range from 3.5-6.99
units per acre as a residential component.
Rascob is concerned with storm water run-off on his property. He asked if the issue would be
resolved on his property specifically. Nolan clarified the purpose of the ordinance Rascob
asked if bonuses would be allowed for residential density.
Weir explained the bonuses wouldn't take the density above seven units per acre.
Nolan explained by doing the right/better design the density would be allowed to be increased,
yet not exceed 7 units per acre.
Rascob provided a scenario of an eight acre parcel with one acre being utilized for storm water.
He asked if the one acre providing storm water would count towards density units per acre.
Finke explained the storm water pond area would not be taken away from net density acreage to
determine total overall density for the site, though seven units per acre maximum would be the
maximum with any credits that may be applied to the project.
Jerry Jubert of 2440 St. Albons St. N., Roseville, MN owns acreage in Medina. Jubert asked
what determines a buffer. Nolan explained the language within the ordinance regarding
buffering and that it is determined by vegetation and distance.
Rascob asked for clarification of uses allowed within the proposed draft ordinance. Nolan
explained the structure of the ordinance and that some uses are not spelled out specifically, rather
3
Medina Planning Commission October 13, 2009 Meeting Minutes
identified more broadly so that each type of use would not have to be listed and have the
potential of missing a use that may be intended to be allowed.
Nolan said he thinks of a mixed use district as a transitional use and would like further language
added to the purpose statement to reflect it.
V. Reid asked if the ordinance has a ceiling for commercial or a maximum percentage. Finke
explained the ordinance does not have a cap on residential, but commercial uses have a
maximum of fifty percent.
Public Hearing was closed at 9:45 p.m.
The Commission discussed the possibility of transit within the district and asked staff if it should
be mentioned in the purpose statement. Finke explained transit is extremely limited in the mixed
use district.
Finke explained they may want to add uses from the Commercial Highway District rather than
just using the Commercial General District uses. The Commission concluded to not reinvent the
wheel, and utilizing existing language from other districts would be appropriate.
Grittman explained the purpose of Stage I is to use it as a tool to make sure it clearly identifies
the guidelines of density and layout. V. Reid asked about five foot side yard setbacks in
residential portions of the district if they should be increased to ten feet. Finke explained the
reason for setbacks so close is it's the only way to achieve more density. He further explained
Cherry Hill had 5 and 10 foot side yard setbacks which required a minimum of 15 feet between
homes within the side yard.
Weir asked for clarification on daycare facilities serving 16 or fewer persons within the district.
She felt the ordinance limited who could provide daycare because of the distance from Highway
55 requirement. Finke explained it is only to apply to multi -family density.
Finke raised concern with the two trees in the front yard requirement. He said it would be
difficult on a 60 foot lot in which the driveway takes up 28 feet of the width of the lot. Concern
is it would not provide sufficient space for two trees to survive. Finke recommended a minimum
of one tree in the front yard.
Finke explained building modulation within the recommended zoning district. Nolan suggested
consistency amongst districts.
Finke explained building height is limited to a maximum of 35 feet under the commercial design
standards. The Commission concluded higher buildings along highway 55 would be more
appropriate and would buffer any residential that may be adjacent to commercial.
The Commission discussed loading docks and asked Grittman of his experience in other
communities. Grittman explained some ordinances don't allow loading docks to abut residential.
The Commission asked staff to look back at the General Business District and how loading
4
Medina Planning Commission October 13, 2009 Meeting Minutes
docks were handled adjacent to residential districts/housing. Finke asked if the mixed use
district needed separation from loading docks. R. Reid said some residential neighborhoods may
expect some commercial adjacent to them.
R. Reid stated outdoor speakers in the outdoor dining and/drinking areas didn't seem
appropriate. The Commission discussed the rational behind allowing speakers and the distance
of 200 feet and why abutting loading docks was only 100 feet in the general business district.
Peterson -Dufresne commented that additional distance for outdoor dining and drinking areas is
due to constant noise, rather than the periodic noise from trucks in loading areas.
V. Reid raised concern with taller buildings being adjacent to residential yards such as office
buildings peering down on residential yards. Nolan suggested transitional language added to
avoid a three story office building being constructed next to residential homes.
Nolan suggested a paragraph be written explaining transitioning of uses and physical factors.
Finke brought up the use of outside storage within the mixed use district. He explained Highway
Commercial and Commercial General allowed outside storage. He suggested revisions in
setbacks. Grittman suggested outdoor storage not be permitted adjacent to residential.
The Commission discussed the Stage III requirements and finalizing of documents. The
Commission concluded that they did not want the project to expire after six months as written if
the developer has "good cause" why they need more time.
Nolan recommended material sample boards be required for projects. Finke explained that it is
currently required under a Site Plan Review and not a CUP.
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Simons to keep the public hearing open and request
recommended changes to be made for Planning Commission review. (Absent: Nielsen)
7. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment of Chapter 8, Section 825 of Medina's City
Code, pertaining to the procedures for Concept Plan Review applications.
Finke explained the Concept Plan Review process and what could be expected of the ordinance
He said not all communities have concept plan reviews, sketch plan reviews or public hearing
requirements. Nolan asked about notification and distance from proposed projects. Finke
explained a public hearing notice would be required unless the Commission recommended
otherwise. Williams and Simons said they'd like to keep notices and public hearing mailings the
same. Weir requested clarification from Finke of distance for public hearings. Finke explained
it was 2000 feet for rural residential districts. Weir said she did not want the distance to be
reduced at the public hearing. Nolan felt it's important to have all notifications consistent so
developers would be aware of all concerns up front before they invest a lot of money into a
project.
The Commission concluded consistency with notification, having flexibility with the information
submitted for review with a basic level of information necessary, a general level of building
5
Medina Planning Commission October 13, 2009 Meeting Minutes
design provided, and identification of natural resources would be necessary during a Concept
Plan Review. Weir said there is support from the Council to have the distance of notification
expanded.
Two things added within the requirements for submittal:
1. natural resources information on the property
2. building design
Public Hearing was opened at 9:54 p.m.
John Rascob of 345 Comanche Trail commented on past Concept Plans submitted and issues he
has had in the past with dealing with the City. He said builders and developers should not have
to spend thousands of dollars on a Concept Plan. Nolan explained what his vision was of the
Concept Plan process and how plans providing issues such as grading or wetlands could be
reviewed and commented on by staff early on through the Concept process. The applicant would
then be aware of potential costs or changes needed for the property.
In summary the Commission discussed the expectation of concept plans. Nolan explained the
more specific a plan provided the better the feedback an applicant would get back from City
staff, Commission and Council. He further explained some properties may be more difficult than
others. If a property has more issues such as wetlands or drainage the applicant should provide
details of those issues up front.
Public Hearing was closed at 10:07 p.m.
Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Litts to approve the ordinance amendment with recommended
changes. (Absent: Nielsen)
8. City Council Meeting Schedule:
9. Adjourn: Motion by Williams, seconded by V. Reid to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen)
6