HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-09-2019 POSTED IN CITY HALL: July 5, 2019
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2019
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. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code
related to setbacks from streets within the Single- and Two-Family
Residential (R2) District
6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code
related to sign illumination
7. Approval of June 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
8. Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 July 2, 2019
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: June 27, 2019
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – July 2, 2019 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Munsell Wetland Buffer Vacation – 3157 Wild Flower Trail – Daniel Munsell has
requested that the City vacate a portion of the wetland buffer easement in the back of their
property in The Enclave. The applicant argues that the developer could have “averaged” the
width of the buffer into adjacent open space owned by the City and proposes to narrow it
upon their property. A hearing will be held at the July 2 City Council meeting.
B) R2 Collector Road Setback Amendment – Matt and Nikki Cole have requested that the City
amend the required setback from a collector roadway within the R2 zoning district from 35
feet to 30 feet. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will schedule a public hearing
when complete, potentially at the July 9 meeting.
C) Raskob Elm Creek Addition – 500 Hamel Road – The John W Raskob Trust has requested to
subdivide the 8 acres (approximately 4 net acres) of property into two separate parcels so
that the family could market the two separately. The City Council granted preliminary
approval at the May 21 meeting. The applicant has now requested final plat application,
which will be presented to the Council when complete, potentially at the July 16 meeting.
D) Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive – Robert
Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development Area to Business, a
staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. Staff is conducting a preliminary
review and will schedule when complete for review, potentially at the August 13 meeting.
E) Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition/OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of
Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate company for OSI) has requested approval of a site
plan review, preliminary plat and rezoning to construct a 2nd building north of their existing facility.
The applicant proposes to construct the building on a separate lot and to rezone the property to
Business, in line with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Council adopted approval documents
on November 7. The applicant has now requested final plat approval. The applicant has also
proposed some slight adjustments to the site plan, which were presented at the Planning Commission
on March 12. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amended site plan. Staff
will present to the City Council when the final plat is prepared.
F) Richardson Lot Combination – PIDs 18-118-23-24-0116 and 18-118-23-24-0117 – Big Island
Land LLC (Dale Richardson) has requested a lot combination of two vacant parcels along
Ardmore Avenue, just west of County Road 19. The parcels do not meet relevant lot
standards and the applicant desires to combine them to construct a single home. The
application is currently incomplete, and staff has requested additional information. Staff will
schedule when complete for review.
G) Marshall-Schleeter Lot Line Rearrangement and Easement Vacation – 1495/1585 Medina
Road – Adam and Susan Marshall have requested a lot line rearrangement between their
property at 1495 Medina Road and the parcel to the west at 1585 Medina Road. The
Marshalls want to convey approximately 4.2 acres to the Schleeters. The applicant has also
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 July 2, 2019
City Council Meeting
requested the vacation of the easements along the rearranged lot line, which will be replaced
along the new line. The Council adopted resolutions of approval on June 18. Staff will work
with the applicant to get documents prepared for recording.
H) Maiser Septic Variance – south of Medina Road, west of Hunter Drive – Norton Homes, on
behalf of Pete Maiser, has requested a variance from the minimum 75’ setback for a septic
system from a wetland. The septic designer stated that the only location for a septic is
located approximately 55 feet from a small wetland on the lot. The City Council granted
approval on June 18. The project will now be closed.
I) Charlie’s Restaurant PUD Concept – 172 Hamel Road – Steve Andres has requested
review of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for construction of a restaurant
at the corner of Hamel Road and Sioux Drive. The applicant seeks a PUD to provide
flexibility to use cargo shipping containers for the building structure. The applicant has
updated the concept following comments from the Planning Commission and City Council.
A hearing on the updated concept plan was held at the June 11 Planning Commission
meeting. The Council provided comments on June 18 and the project will now be closed.
J) Ditter Concept Plan – Jim Ditter, Tom Ditter, and Ditter Properties have requested review of a
concept plan related to the potential subdivision of four existing parcels totaling approximately 25
acres into five lots. The Planning Commission and Council has previously provided comments on a
six-lot concept. A hearing on the updated concept plan was held at the June 11 Planning
Commission meeting. The Council provided comments on June 18 and the project will now
be closed.
K) School Lake 2nd Final Plat, School Lake 2nd Easement Vacation, Johnson ADU CUP, Maxxon,
Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – 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.
L) Woods of Medina, Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval.
Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded.
Other Projects
A) Uptown Hamel – Staff met with the Uptown Hamel Business Group and discussed the student
project and continued the outreach on what the City can do to support activities in Uptown Hamel.
Staff has also drafted an ordinance to update the density requirements for residential development in
Uptown Hamel consistent with the updated Comp Plan. The ordinance also deletes the two
“subdistricts” in Uptown Hamel and replaces with a single district. Public hearings were held on the
ordinance amendment and rezoning at the June 11 Planning Commission meeting and the
Commission recommended approval. The ordinances are scheduled to be presented to the City
Council on July 2.
B) Quad City Agreement – staff met with the cities of Loretto, Independence, and Greenfield related to
updating the Tri-City Agreement to allow Loretto to connect to the sanitary sewer system along
County Road 19. The intent is to have an agreement for approval of the 4 city councils by early
August. Staff is finalizing our comments to route to other communities.
C) Zoning Enforcement – two correction notices are pending for zoning violations. Staff intends to
present one to the Council at the July 2 meeting for potential legal action.
D) Hickory Drive Stormwater - Elm Creek Funding – I attended the Hennepin County Board Budget
Committee where the 2020 capital levy for Elm Creek Watershed was discussed. Elm Creek’s share
of $72,000 for Hickory Drive stormwater improvements was included in the levy. The Committee
approved of the inclusion of the levy in the preliminary levy to be discussed this fall.
TO: City Council
FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety,
Through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: June 27, 2019
RE: Police Department Updates
Auto-Motor-Plex Event
On June 24th the Medina Auto-Motor-Plex held a fundraiser for the Miracle League which supports
the handicapped children baseball league. The event had over 700 attendees and it went off without
incident. I was onsite and walked the grounds. The event was well planned, and it appeared that
everyone enjoyed the event.
Sgt. Nelson out on Medical
On June 21st Sgt. Jason Nelson notified me that he was at the hospital for emergency gallbladder
surgery. He will be out of work for the near future, with a return sometime in early July.
WMDT Continued Success
I was notified by our agent in the West Metro Drug Taskforce that in one of their latest cases they
seized multiple pounds of meth. This has been an ongoing investigation with two large seizures
totaling over 80 pounds.
All Day Training
On June 24th we held our all-day training session covering officer wellness, firearms using shields
and scenario-based use of force training. We partner with the Corcoran Police Department using
their range and our facility. The training put our officers in real life situations, under stress and
prepares them to think critically under pressure. It was excellent training. We had one down side,
during one of the scenarios an actor unintentionally scratched two cars being used in the training.
Hamel Rodeo
We are planning for the Hamel Rodeo events. We will have an extra challenge with the road
construction on Brockton Lane. Both the Hamel Rodeo Dance and Parade will be affected by the
Brockton project. Parking will be limited, and the parade route will change slightly to
accommodate the construction. We will have extra officers working the details.
MEMORANDUM
CO2 Detectors Ordered
While on a medical call, one of our officers was unknowingly exposed to carbon monoxide gas
being released in the building. He was sent to the hospital, checked out and released. Due to this
incident, I have ordered CO gas detectors for each officer’s medical bag which will alert them to the
existence of CO gas in the area.
4th of July Fireworks
We have approved a special event permit for the Medina Country Club to hold a fireworks show at
their golf club. It is always a good show, if you are looking for something to do for the 4th of July
stop by. They launch them just behind the Police and Public Works Facility.
Patrol Update:
For the dates of June 13 to June 24, 2019, our officers issued 18 citations and 90 warnings for
various traffic infractions. There was a total of 0 traffic accidents, 6 medicals, 6 alarms and 0 DWI.
Investigation Update:
Continuing to investigate the burglaries and theft from motor vehicles in the city of Loretto.
Hennepin County Crime Lab processed the vehicles the day of the theft. I received information
today (06/26) that a fingerprint lifted from the vehicle matches a known suspect. Several search
warrants were executed in the city of Minneapolis during the week of June 3rd – June 10th. One
suspect has been identified in using a stolen credit card at a business in Minneapolis. This group
continues to be active in the metro area. Investigation is ongoing.
Interviewed a victim and a suspect of a sexual offense in the city of Loretto. After investigating, I
am not anticipating any charges.
Our office received a report of a counterfeit $20 bill from a local business. The bill was sent to the
United States Secret Service for review. A possible suspect who passed the bill was identified and I
will be attempting to interview them soon.
Received a report of a fraudulent use of a credit card at Target. I sent a crime alert out to other
Police Departments with a picture of the suspect. Investigation is ongoing.
Participated in a joint training with the Corcoran Police Department on 06/24.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: June 26, 2019
MEETING: July 2, 2019
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
• WSB and Public Works have been working together to get our as-builts in order and
electronically available to all city staff. We plan to have all as-builts available
electronically in our service truck through a laptop and hope to make this feasible by the
end of the year.
• We are applying dust control to Willow Dr. North and Hackamore. They are two of the
most traveled gravel roads in Medina.
• A few streets have been added to the CIP for overlays and will be in the July 16th budget
packet for your review.
• Public Works began its early summer right-of-way mowing. The tractor for mowing is
now in the shop with a hydraulic problem. We are hoping to get this back and mowing
soon.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• Public Works replaced several sections of pipe in the Lakeview Drive area near Holy
Name Lake. The pipe was rusted through and tree roots had entered the pipe which was
blocking the flow.
• Well #6 is being repaired. We received two quotes for the repair. It is believed to be a bad
motor, but we took some time to diagnose and review the quotes because of the expense
to pull the pump. If it is the motor, it will be a costly repair.
• Public Works has repaired several stormwater structures and pipes throughout the city in
the urban area. Most of them have been pipes moving and creating a space for soil to
enter the pipe.
• The irrigation season has begun, and flows are picking up on the water system.
• The quad city group met June 26th and set goals to bring the agreement to councils in
early August. We are getting very close to the deadline that Loretto needs to meet. There
is some negotiating to be done on future connections, but it appears to still be a feasible
schedule.
PARKS/TRAILS
• The parks are in good shape and the tennis courts at the Hunter Lions Park are being
repaired. The contractor pressure washed them this week.
MISCELLANEOUS
• Ivan Dingmann will be retiring on July 8th and a resolution is in this packet to recognize
Ivan for his service. Please let him know what a great asset he has been to the city when
you see him.
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 3 July 9, 2019
R2 Collector Setback Amendment Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: July 3, 2019
MEETING: July 9, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Public Hearing – R2 Collector Setback Variance – Matthew and Nikki Cole
Background
Matthew and Nikki Cole, 3375 Butternut Drive, have requested that the City consider reducing
the required setback from Minor Collector Roadways in the R2 (Single- and Two-Family)
Zoning District.
The R2 zoning district, like most other districts, currently requires a larger setback of 35 feet
from minor collector roadways. The applicants’ property backs up onto Hunter Drive, which is a
minor collector roadway. The applicants’ home was constructed approximate 43 feet from the
Hunter Drive right-of-way, leaving 8 feet for a deck. The applicants originally were going to
request a variance to reduce the setback to allow construction of a larger deck. In consultation
with staff, however, it was difficult to come up with any practical difficulty which was unique to
the property. The circumstances appear quite common for other properties.
The applicants have researched the requirements in a number of other communities, and it
appears that it is true that an increased setback adjacent to collector roadways is not common in
other cities. The applicants have prepared a presentation summarizing the information, which is
attached for reference.
The main areas to which the R2 zoning district currently
applies are:
1) Northern portion of the Enclave at Medina
(adjacent to Hunter Drive)
2) Throughout the Fields of Medina
(adjacent to Meander Road)
It is likely that additional sites will be zoned R2 in the
future upon development. The reduced setback from a
collector roadway would then also apply to those sites if
adopted.
Most R2 properties along a minor collector roadway are
currently set back further than the required 35 feet.
Most of the homes in Fields of Medina West are setback
around 45-50 feet. Most homes in the Fields of
Medina East and the Enclave are setback around 70 feet.
Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 3 July 9, 2019
R2 Collector Setback Amendment Planning Commission Meeting
The exception is the north end of The Enclave. A good example of the difference between
35 feet and 30 feet may be 3385 Butternut Drive, the grey house on the north end of the Enclave
along Hunter Drive. The back of the home is setback approximately 36 feet from the Hunter
Drive right-of-way and the balcony extends to within approximately 32 feet. The applicants’
home at 3375 Butternut Drive is the red home to the south and is setback 43 feet from the Hunter
Drive right-of-way. The applicant would like a 12-foot wide deck.
Minor collectors include mostly 40 MPH local roadways such as Hunter Drive, Brockton Lane,
Meander Road, Arrowhead Drive and Medina Road.
Analysis
When considering changes to specific zoning regulations, it is helpful to consider what the intent
of the requirement may be and how it serves the broader goals and objectives of the community
as described in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has provided information from the
Comprehensive Plan, including the Community Vision and Goals, Land Use Principles, and the
objectives of the urban residential land uses.
Staff believes the increased setback adjacent to Collector Roadways is intended to provide
additional open space and more of a rural vista along a particular neighborhood, even when the
neighborhood may more of a suburban layout. For this reason, it may not be particularly
surprising that other, more suburban, communities would not have increased setbacks along
collector roadways.
Another potential intent of the increased setback would be for the residents of that property to
have more distance from a heavier traveled roadway. If this were the primary objective, it would
more likely to see similar requirements in other communities.
If the Planning Commission and Council believe it is appropriate to reduce the setback from
minor collector roadways within the R2 zoning district, staff would suggest that it may also be
worth considering a similar reduction in other similar districts. At the very least, this would
include the Urban Residential (UR) and Mixed Residential (MXR) zoning districts, which are
otherwise very similar to the R2 district. If there is some rationale to keep the larger setback in
some of the districts, the City could certainly do so, but staff did not see a rationale to do so.
Reducing the setback in these districts would affect additional neighborhoods, including:
• Medina Morningside adjacent to Willow Drive
• Homes adjacent to Hunter Drive, north of the Enclave
• Future Mixed Residential Development at Brockton/Medina and Hamel/Tamarack
Staff believes the larger setback adjacent to minor collector roadways supports the goals and
objectives of the Comp Plan by protecting additional open/green space along thru-streets. Even
in a suburban neighborhood, there is a more “rural feel” if the homes are back further from the
exterior streets. set back further from the exterior streets. This also provide more opportunity for
buffering, including berming and landscaping. If the setback is reduced, it becomes difficult to
accommodate any buffer while still providing a lawn which would be desired by the homeowner.
Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 3 July 9, 2019
R2 Collector Setback Amendment Planning Commission Meeting
Other Considerations
While reviewing the proposed amendment, staff discovered a potential issue related to the
increased setback from collector and arterial roadways.
The R2 zoning district requires a minimum lot depth of 90 feet. If a lot were platted at the
minimum lot depth and backing up to a minor collector roadway, it would require a 30 foot
setback from the front street and a 35 foot setback from the collector. This would leave a
buildable pad of 35 feet.
In the same scenario backing up to an arterial roadway, the front setback would be 30 feet+50
feet from the arterial at the back, leaving only a buildable pad of 10 feet. While it would be
reasonable to expect that the subdivider would recognize this issue and make the lots deeper,
staff believes it would be worth considering an amendment to increase the depth adjacent to
collector and arterial roadways.
This discussion is not necessarily related to the applicants’ request, but came to mind during
review.
Potential Action
The Planning Commission should first hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance
amendment to receive feedback from interested parties.
If the Planning Commission concurs with the requested amendment, the following action would
be appropriate:
Move to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending the setback requirements of the
R2 zoning district.
If the Planning Commission does not support the requested amendment, the following action
could be taken:
Move to recommend denial of the ordinance amending the setback requirements of the
R2 zoning district.
Attachment
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Comp Plan Information
3. Applicant Presentation/Narrative
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R2) DISTRICT;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 840.2.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by
deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 840.2.05. (R2) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code:
Subd. 1. Density of Development: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with
the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 2. Minimum Lot Size (Single Family Detached): 8,000 square feet
Subd. 3. Minimum Lot Size (Two Family Dwelling): 5,000 square feet per unit
Subd. 4. Minimum Lot Width (Single Family Detached): 60 feet. The minimum lot width
shall be increased to 90 feet for lots with a side yard adjacent to a collector or arterial
roadway.
Subd. 5. Minimum Lot Width (Two Family Dwelling): 50 feet per unit. The minimum lot
width shall be increased to 70 feet for a unit with a side yard adjacent to a collector or
arterial roadway.
Subd. 6. Minimum Lot Depth: 90 feet
Subd. 7. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 25 feet, except as follows:
(a) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street
shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet.
(b) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20
feet if garage doors do not face the street and if garage walls facing the street include
a window or architectural elements to give the appearance of living space.
Subd. 8. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 25 feet. The rear yard setback may be reduced to 15
feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but may not be reduced if abutting
public park property.
Subd. 9. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (Single Family Detached):
(a) The combined total of both side yards shall be a minimum of 15 feet
Commented [DF1]: Discussion: Increase to 100 feet
adjacent to Minor Collector and 120 feet adjacent to arterial?
(b) Neither side yard shall be less than 5 feet
(c) One of the side yards shall be 10 feet or greater
Subd. 10. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (Two Family Dwelling): 10 feet, except the
side yard setback shall be reduced to zero for the common wall between two dwelling units.
Subd. 11. Street Setbacks: A required yard setback adjacent to a public or private street shall
be increased based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
(a) Local Roadway or Private Street: 25 feet, except as follows:
(i) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a
street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet.
(ii) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced
to 20 feet if garage doors do not face the street and if garage walls facing
the street include a window or architectural elements to give the appearance
of living space.
(b) Minor Collector Roadway: 35 30 feet
(c) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet
Subd. 12. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area.
Impervious surface coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices
are implemented on the lot which, according to the City Engineer, reduce runoff below that
which would occur if abiding by the maximum impervious surface regulation. However,
in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 60 percent of the lot area remaining
after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this _____ day of _________, 2019.
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of _________, 2019.
Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan
Community Vision
The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant
goals and strategies.
Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its
residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City,
while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods, places of
recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the ensurate with available
transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity.
Community Goals
The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform
objectives and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the
community to promote the rural character of Medina.
• Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the
community.
• Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to
planning, engineering and development.
• Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted
residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other
Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace
proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and
wastewater infrastructure available to the City.
• Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during
particular timeframes.
• Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the
entire community.
• Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities,
connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents.
• Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support
residents at all stages of their lives.
• Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the
residential areas of the City.
• Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s
police department and coordinate with its contracted volunteer fire
departments.
• Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and
efficient staff and long-range planning and financial management.
Future General Land Use Policy Direction
As described in the Vision Statement, the City of Medina strives to promote and protect its open
spaces and natural environment. The City has historically been, and intends to continue to be,
primarily a rural community.
The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with
regional forecast and consistent with Community Goals.
Future Land Use Plan Principles
The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to
implement the City’s goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and
Community Goals as furthered by the following principles:
Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form
• Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments.
Surveys indicate that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual
access to green spaces.
• Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected
with roads, trails or sidewalks.
• Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development
patterns consistent with existing rural residential development.
• Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible
in scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods.
• Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which
occur within the same time period.
• Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future
infrastructure availability.
• Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to
help promote walkability.
• Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land
use decisions in the City.
Road Patterns
• Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with
use forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes.
• Establish collector streets with good connections through the community’s
growth areas.
• Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage
multi- modal transportation choices.
• Consider opportunities to improve north-south travel within the City.
Open Spaces and Natural Resources
• Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide
educational opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of
natural areas.
• Preserve open spaces and natural resources.
• Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and
reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as
necessary.
• Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the
City’s natural systems.
Business Districts and Commercial Areas
• Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and
along primary transportation corridors.
• Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote
businesses within mixed-use areas.
• Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to
reduce traffic and commuting demands.
• Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community
and provide opportunities for the community to gather.
• Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides
open and protects natural resources.
Urban Service Designations
The Urban Service Area includes the residential and commercial areas of the City that
are currently or will be served by municipal water and sewer services.
Residential Uses
Objectives:
• Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other
significant natural characteristics of the property.
• Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments
that protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district.
Such modification shall generally not exceed -10% of the minimum density or
+20% of the maximum density requirement of the relevant land use.
• Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary.
• Regulate land within the Mixed Residential land use to provide opportunities for
residential development with a density in excess of 8 units/acre. Flexibility is
purposefully provided within the land use to support opportunities for a single project
to provide both low- and high- density housing or for multiple developers to partner
on independent projects within a Mixed Residential area.
• Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential
building and low impact development design standards.
• Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of
public facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA
and growth strategies.
• Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan.
• Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to
the provision of urban services that will hinder future division.
• Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of
homes, conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the
City's open space and natural features.
• Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads,
with adequate facilities and open space.
• Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety.
• Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels,
lot sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate
land use, market demands, and development standards.
• Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible
with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of
ecologically significant natural resources.
• Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such
development is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include
enclosed parking, green space, landscape buffering and height limitations.
• Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of
aesthetic enhancement and safety.
• Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use
to reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required.
• Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new
development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open
space.
• In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s
in exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi-
family units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources.
• Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the
development characteristics and natural resources of each existing
neighborhood.
• Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods
and to maintain public health and safety.
7/5/2019
1
Matt & Nikki Cole
3375 Butternut Drive
Medina, MN 55340
(612) 387‐3212
Exact Text Amendment Request (RED)
Section 840.2.05. (R2) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code:
Subd. 11. Street Setbacks: A required yard setback adjacent to a public or private street shall be
increased based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
(a) Local Roadway or Private Street: 25 feet, except as follows:
(i) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set
back a minimum of 30 feet.
(ii) Reduced setback for side‐load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if
garage doors do not face the street and if garage walls facing the street include a window or
architectural elements to give the appearance of living space.
(b) Minor Collector Roadway: 35 30 feet
(c) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet
1
2
7/5/2019
2
Two R2
Communities
Potentially
impacted,
although I’m
not clear how
many of those
properties
back up to a
Minor
Collector
Roadway.
The following pages have been
included to demonstrate
setback distances in surrounding
communities.
3
4
7/5/2019
3
I was in search of comparable
zones in looking for setback
regulations.
Our home
3375 Butternut Drive
Medina, MN 55340
5
6
7/5/2019
4
Orono, MN
7
8
7/5/2019
5
9
10
7/5/2019
6
Corcoran, MN
11
12
7/5/2019
7
13
14
7/5/2019
8
15
16
7/5/2019
9
Wayzata, MN
17
18
7/5/2019
10
Loretto, MN
19
20
7/5/2019
11
Minnetonka Beach, MN
I’ve included this page so
that you can see what this
table has been designed to
convey.
It’s more than 35 ft, but I felt installing a pool (see
next page) is more aggressive/intrusive than 4‐6
posts in the ground for a deck that violates the
variance by approx. 4 ft.
21
22
7/5/2019
12
Does our ask
fall here?
And finally, a below ground pool that
violates the variance has to be more
intrusive than an above ground deck with
four/five/six posts in the ground.
23
24
7/5/2019
13
Plymouth, MN
25
26
7/5/2019
14
Rockford, MN
27
28
7/5/2019
15
Greenfield, MN
29
30
7/5/2019
16
31
32
7/5/2019
17
Mound, MN
33
34
7/5/2019
18
St. Michael, MN
35
36
7/5/2019
19
Long Lake, MN
37
38
7/5/2019
20
39
40
7/5/2019
21
Minnetrista, MN
41
42
7/5/2019
22
43
44
7/5/2019
23
Delano, MN
45
46
7/5/2019
24
47
48
7/5/2019
25
Edina, MN
49
50
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 July 9, 2019
Sign Illumination Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: July 3, 2019
MEETING: July 9, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Sign Illumination
Background
Recently, an industrial property along County Road 116 inquired about installation of a new
monument sign. The owner was hoping to have an internally illuminated monument sign along
CR116. During discussions, staff informed the owner of the following limitation on properties
within the Industrial Park, Business Park, Commercial-General, and Commercial-Neighborhood
districts:
“Limitation on internal illumination. Freestanding Signs shall not be internally
illuminated unless they are located along the frontage of a state highway.”
It is likely that the intent of this limitation is to reduce potential light intrusion from freestanding
signs along lesser traveled roadways and also in areas which may be nearer residential property.
Staff believed the limitation may warrant some discussion, especially within the context of a
property along County Road 116 just north of Highway 55.
The ordinance does permit freestanding signs to be externally illuminated, with lights shining
downward onto the sign.
A zoning map is attached for reference. The districts in which this limitation apply are:
Industrial Park (brown), Business Park (light purple), Commercial-General (orange), and
Commercial-neighborhood (yellow). The relevant properties are generally located in the
following areas:
• Tower Drive/Hamel Road (warehouse properties)
• County Road 116, north of Highway 55
• Arrowhead Drive, south of Highway 55
• Mohawk Drive, north of Chippewa (Wealshire)
• Potentially future development along Willow Drive, north and south of Hwy 55
The City regulates the luminance (brightness) of internally illuminated signs by restricting to
500 NITS and restricts light output to 2000 lumens to limit glare on adjacent streets and
properties.
Properties within the Commercial-Highway and Business zoning districts are not subject to
similar limitations on illuminations and internally illuminated signs would be permitted adjacent
to any type of street, even if adjacent to residential property.
Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 July 9, 2019
Sign Illumination Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends expanding the locations where internally illuminated signs are permitted in
these districts beyond adjoining Highway 55. At the least, staff would recommend allowing
internally illuminated signs along arterial roadways. Arterial roadways would include Highway
55, Highway 12, CR116, and CR101. It would also include CR19, CR 24, and CR11, but there
are no properties within the relevant zoning districts in these locations.
If the Planning Commission and City Council concur with expanding where internally
illuminated are permitted in these districts, the following options are available:
• Prohibit internally illuminated signs except adjacent to arterial roadways
• Prohibit internally illuminated signs within 200 feet of a residential district
• Allow internally illuminated within the districts, rely on luminance (brightness)
limitations
Staff has drafted the attached ordinance which combines the first two options above. As drafted,
internally illuminated signs would be permitted along all arterial roadways AND would be
permitted along other streets if more than 200 feet from residential property.
If the prohibition against internally illuminated signs were removed, the luminance and light
output limitations would still apply. This would treat these districts more similar to the
Commercial-Highway and Business districts.
Potential Action
The Planning Commission should first hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance
amendment to receive feedback from interested parties.
If the Planning Commission is in favor of amending the ordinance to permit internally
illuminated signs along arterial roadways and along other streets if more than 200 feet from
residential property, the following action would be appropriate:
Move to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending regulations pertaining to sign
illumination.
Attachments
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Zoning Map
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO
ILLUMINATION OF SIGNS;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 815.13 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by
deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 815.13.Commercial General (CG), Business Park and Industrial Park District
Signs.
Subd. 1. Permitted Signs. In addition to the Signs allowed in Section 815.07, the
following Signs are permitted in Commercial General (CG) District. All Signs shall be
integrated with the design and architecture of any buildings or structures on the
property in terms of materials, style, color and placement.
(a) Freestanding Signs.
(1) Maximum number. One freestanding sign is permitted per lot, except a second
sign shall be permitted if the lot has frontage on more than one street. The
second freestanding sign may not be located along the same street frontage as
the first freestanding sign.
(2) Maximum size. No freestanding sign shall exceed 64 square feet of Sign Area.
(3) Maximum height. No freestanding sign shall exceed 10 feet in height.
(4) Setbacks. Freestanding Signs shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from all
property lines and shall not encroach within a Clear Vision Triangle of an
intersection.
(5) Limitation on internal iIllumination. Freestanding Signs within 200 feet of a
residential zoning district shall not be internally illuminated unless they are
located along the frontage of an arterial roadway state highway. External
illumination shall be downcast and otherwise conform with Section 829 of
the City Code.
(6) Landscaping, The Freestanding Sign shall be landscaped around the perimeter
of the base of the Sign. The landscaping shall cover at least two (2) times the
total area of the Sign base.
(b) Wall Signs.
(1) Maximum size. The maximum total Sign Area of Wall Signs shall be based
upon the area of the wall on which they are attached as described in the table
below. Additionally, no individual Wall Sign shall exceed 200 square feet of
Sign Area. For the purposes of a multi-tenant building, the maximum Sign
Area for Wall Signs shall be based on the frontage of the space leased or
owned.
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
Area of Wall Maximum Total Sign Area on Wall
1000 square feet or less 8% of the area of the wall
Greater than 1000 square feet and less
than 5000 square feet
80 square feet + 4% of the area of the
wall in excess of 1000 square feet
5000 square feet or greater 240 square feet + 2% of the area of the
wall in excess of 5000 square feet
(2) Wall Signs limited to one wall per street frontage. Wall signs shall only
be located on one building wall, except lots with frontage on two or more
streets may have Wall Signs on one wall per street frontage.
(3) Projecting Signs prohibited. No Wall Sign shall extend more than 12
inches from the surface of a building face, wall, or surface.
(c) Window Signs.
(1) Maximum number. Only one Window Sign shall be permitted along each
frontage of a structure, except for multi-tenant buildings where one Window
Sign shall be permitted per tenant space.
(2) Maximum size. The Window Sign shall be limited to 50 percent of the window
in which it is located.
(3) No permit required. No permit shall be required for a Window Sign, but such
Sign shall meet relevant requirements of this ordinance.
(d) Directional Signs.
(1) Directional Signs shall be only permitted for properties utilizing a drive-thru or
that have loading or staging areas.
(2) Maximum number. Two Directional Signs are permitted for each property.
(3) Location. The Directional Signs shall be set back at least five feet from the curb
or right-of-way.
Subd. 2. Illumination. If the Sign is illuminated, it shall meet the applicable luminary
requirements set forth in Section 829 of the city’s ordinances. Freestanding Signs shall
not be internally illuminated unless they are located along the frontage of a state
highway.
SECTION II. Section 815.15 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by
deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 815.15. Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District Signs.
Subd. 1. Permitted Signs. In addition to the Signs allowed in Section 815.07, the following
Signs are permitted in Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District. All Signs shall be
integrated with the design and architecture of any buildings or structures on the property in
terms of materials, style, color and placement.
(a) Freestanding Signs.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
(1) Maximum number. One freestanding sign is permitted per lot, except a second
sign shall be permitted if the lot has frontage on more than one street.
(2) Maximum size. No freestanding sign shall exceed 40 square feet of Sign Area.
(3) Maximum height. No freestanding sign shall exceed 10 feet in height.
(4) Setbacks. Freestanding Signs shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from all
property lines and shall not encroach within a Clear Vision Triangle of an
intersection.
(5) Limitation on internal iIllumination. Freestanding Signs within 200 feet of a
residential zoning district shall not be internally illuminated unless they are
located along the frontage of an arterial roadway state highway. External
illumination shall be downcast and otherwise conform with Section 829 of the
City Code.
(56) Landscaping, The Freestanding Sign shall be landscaped around the perimeter of
the base of the Sign. The landscaping shall cover at least two (2) times the total
area of the Sign base.
(b) Wall Signs.
(1) Maximum size. The total Sign Area of Wall Signs shall not exceed eight percent of
the area of the wall to which they are attached. For the purposes of a multi-tenant
building, the maximum Sign Area for Wall Signs shall be based on the frontage of
the space leased or owned. Additionally, no individual Wall Sign shall exceed 64
square feet of Sign Area.
(2) Wall Signs limited to one wall per street frontage. Wall signs shall only be
located on one building wall, except lots with frontage on two or more streets
may have Wall Signs on one wall per street frontage
(3) Projecting Signs prohibited. No Wall Sign shall extend more than 12 inches
from the surface of a building face, wall, or surface.
(c) Window Signs.
(1) Maximum number. Only one Window Sign shall be permitted along each
frontage of a structure, except for multi-tenant buildings where one Window
Sign shall be permitted per tenant space.
(2) Maximum size. The Window Sign shall be limited to 50 percent of the window in
which it is located.
(3) No permit required. No permit shall be required for a Window Sign, but such
Sign shall meet relevant requirements of this ordinance.
(d) Directional Signs.
(1) Directional Signs shall be only permitted for properties utilizing a drive-thru or that
have loading or staging areas.
(2) Maximum number. Two Directional Signs are permitted for each property.
(3) Location. The Directional Signs shall be set back at least five (5) feet from the
curb or right-of-way.
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
Subd. 2. Illumination. If the Sign is illuminated, it shall meet the applicable luminary
requirements set forth in Section 829 of the city’s ordinances. Freestanding Signs
shall not be internally illuminated unless they are located along the frontage of a state
highway.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this _____ day of _________, 2019.
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of _________, 2019.
Katrina
Independence
Medina
Spurzem
Peter
School Lake
Holy Name
Half Moon
Wolsfeld
Mooney
Winterhalter
Krieg
Miller
Thies
Ardmore
Hidden Lake
HAMEL
P
I
O
N
E
E
R
H
OME
S
T
E
A
DTO MAHAW KCHIPPEWA
PARKVIEWWILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19COUNTY ROAD 101COUNTY ROAD 116MEDINAMOHAWKNAVAJO
HIGHWAY 55
TOWNLINETAMARACKCHESTNUT
COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEADHUNTERCHEYENNE BROCKTONCOUNTY ROAD 11
CLYDESDALE
HOLY NAMEHACKAMORE
H O L L Y B U S H
EVERGREEN
MORNINGSIDE
H A M E L
CLYDES DAL ECOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 55
PIONEERCOUNTY ROAD 24
CHIPPEWA
ARROWHEADCOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 55
M E D I N A M E D IN A
HAMEL
WILLOWTAMARACKHUNTERZoning Map
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles
Map Updated: July 5, 2019
Current to Ordinance #649
(Non-Residential)
Please contact the Planning Department
(763-473-4643) for more information
regarding property within PUDs (Planned
Unit Developments)
PUD (Non-Res)
Legend
Residential - see reverse
Rural Residential-2 (RR-2)
Rural Public/Semi-Public (RPS)
Business Park (BP)
Business (B)
Industrial Park (IP)
Commercial-Highway (CH)
Commercial Highway-Railroad (CH-RR)
Commerial-General (CG)
Rural Business Holding (RBH)
Rural Commercial Holding (RCH)
Sanitary Landfill (SL)
Uptown Hamel (UH)
Commercial-Neighorhood (CN)
Public/Semi-Public (PS)
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday June 11, 2019 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Aaron Amic, Peter Galzki, Beth Nielsen, Kerby Nester, 8
and Robin Reid. 9
10
Absent: Planning Commissioner Cindy Piper and Rashmi Williams. 11
12
Also Present: City Planning Director 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
Albers reported that the Council met in May to consider a Site Plan review for Highway 55 21
Mini Storage, which the Council approved. He noted that the Council met the previous week 22
to review a lot line rearrangement and vacation and advised that the Council directed staff to 23
prepare resolutions of approval which will come before the Council at the next meeting. He 24
stated that the Council also considered a septic setback variance request and also directed 25
staff to prepare a resolution of approval. 26
27
Liz Weir, 1262 Hunter Drive, stated that she represents Medina for the Elm Creek Watershed 28
and has been the only representative for the past year. She noted that she typically misses 29
one meeting per year and asked if anyone would be interested in becoming her alternate. She 30
noted that the group meets the second Wednesday of the month at the Maple Grove City Hall. 31
32
4. Planning Department Report 33
34
Finke provided an update. 35
36
5. Public Hearing – 172 Hamel Road – Steve Andres – Updated Concept Plan 37
Review for Charlie’s Restaurant 38
39
Finke presented a request for a concept plan related to Charlie’s restaurant, noting that the 40
Commission reviewed a slightly different application two months ago. He stated that the 41
previous request was under the context of a PUD while the applicant is no longer pursuing a 42
PUD. He explained that the updated concept plan mimics a wood grain elevator, noting that 43
wood is an allowed building material. He reviewed the current zoning of the property and 44
allowed uses. He stated that the City is currently reviewing the Uptown Hamel regulations, 45
but will continue to operate under the current regulations until those updates become 46
effective. He highlighted the changes that have been made to the concept plan in response to 47
the comments received from the first review noting that the building would be closer to the 48
roadway with more parking provided in the back of the building. He stated that the primary 49
change in this concept is the architectural design. He stated that staff suggested some 50
comments related to porches, overhangs, and increased windows should the application move 51
2
forward. He stated that the restaurant is small inside with the idea for mostly take-out, or 52
patio seating. He stated that in Uptown Hamel outdoor seating is only permitted if there are 53
20 spaces inside, which would not be the case in this application and therefore would not be 54
permitted. He stated that the plan increases parking to 20 more functional stalls and provided 55
additional opportunities for shared parking, noting that the applicant is working with the 56
church to the west to develop a shared parking agreement. He noted that engineering has 57
stated that they would like a traffic study to ensure that stacking would not cause a problem. 58
He noted that previously the applicant was going to request a PUD which would have given 59
the City more discretion. He noted that if the applicant meets the underlying zoning 60
requirements, the City would have less discretion. He asked for input from the Commission 61
on the submitted concept plan, specifically the outdoor seating. 62
63
Grant Bender, applicant, stated that there was a lot of good feedback from the Commission, 64
City Council, residents and Uptown Hamel meetings following the review of the first concept 65
plan. He noted that those comments were used to create this second concept plan for a little 66
restaurant, which would be about 700 square feet. He noted that this would be the first 67
restaurant in Uptown Hamel and the first independently owned restaurant in Medina. He 68
stated that this is an opportunity for them to bring something good to the community. He 69
noted that there has been a lot of feedback on the menu but noted that they have only released 70
preliminary ideas thus far. He welcomed additional comments, noting that nothing on the 71
menu is fried and there will not be a lot of smoking of meats. He stated that they have also 72
incorporated the library into the design in attempt to create a more public space. 73
74
Amic asked for details on the possible shared parking with the church. 75
76
Bender stated that they sent the new concept plan to the church and have discussed shared 77
parking, which would also be a benefit to the church patrons. He noted that they will 78
continue to discuss the details with the church as this moves forward. 79
80
Amic asked if alcohol would be served. 81
82
Bender stated that they have asked staff to look into licensing for the opening or a possibility 83
for the future. 84
85
Reid asked and received confirmation that the library would be moved to the left of the 86
building. She asked why the door would be painted black. 87
88
Bender noted that the door would be painted congruent with the rest of the design. He noted 89
that the building would use local barnwood. He stated that there would be a live way along 90
the walkway, noting that the panel would be removed in the winter months. He explained 91
that the panel would be propagated indoors in the spring and then brought to the site in the 92
summer for installation. 93
94
Reid asked if the planters shown would be an accurate representation. 95
96
Bender replied that he would be leaning towards more natural landscaping in the front, noting 97
that the planters were most likely a filler for the design. 98
99
Reid asked what the white item is sticking up from the roof. 100
101
Bender explained that would depict a vent hood, noting that would be shielded from both 102
sides and advised that the sketch is not an accurate depiction of the hood. 103
104
3
Nielsen applauded the applicant for incorporating comments and bringing back another 105
concept. She stated that she is excited to see this move forward. 106
107
Amic commented that in his time on the Commission he has never seen an applicant bring 108
back a concept plan twice to ask for input. He stated that this shows that the applicant would 109
be an amazing neighbor that cares about the community. 110
111
Bender commented that he is an open door and welcomes any comments from residents. He 112
stated that he likes to have ideas and input from the community as this would be a community 113
restaurant. 114
115
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. 116
117
David Shubbe, Argent Park resident, stated that he distributed a document expressing his 118
concerns at the April 9th meeting. He noted that document was also signed by 14 of the 18 119
owners at Argent Park. He noted that he continues to be concerned by traffic impacts of this 120
restaurant use and provided an example of a traffic scenario that could occur. 121
122
Nielsen commented that it would appear that problem could already exist with the massage 123
business and would not be unique to this business. 124
125
Amic asked how the resident would feel their residential building adds to the traffic concerns 126
in that area. 127
128
Shubbe replied that he does not believe his building causes problems. 129
130
Amic stated that he would guarantee that when the Argent Park building came through the 131
approval process, there were most likely more concerns about traffic from the public. He 132
noted that traffic is always a concern when a new building is constructed. He stated that he is 133
impressed that this applicant has begin to address the problem even before bringing a formal 134
application. He asked if the Argent Park residents are opposed to the concept as a whole. 135
136
Shubbe replied that he is not opposed to the concept and believes it is a unique concept. 137
138
Marilyn Forten, 365 Comanche Trail, stated that she owns property along Hamel Road and 139
likes this concept. She stated that she is involved in the Uptown Hamel group and noted that 140
the Hamel library is willing to move to another site to provide additional space on the west 141
end of the church property. She stated that if the applicant wants to keep the library in that 142
space, that is fine. She referenced a crosswalk that has never been marked and noted that 143
needs to be marked to provide additional safety for pedestrian crossings. She stated that she 144
likes the idea of a shared parking lot. She asked if the speed on Hamel Road between 145
Brockton and Hunter could be reduced to 20 mph. 146
147
Finke noted that a speed study would need to be completed in order to investigate that option, 148
noting that speeds typically increase following a study. 149
150
Forten stated that perhaps a stop sign at Hunter or Brockton would be helpful. 151
152
Finke replied that there will be a three-way stop at Brockton. 153
154
Forten stated that the Uptown Hamel group is in favor of a restaurant in Uptown Hamel. 155
156
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. 157
4
158
Galzki stated that he appreciates the whole change in theme. He asked if there had been any 159
thought in a traffic study to alleviate some of the concerns. He stated that he was happy to 160
see the connection and shared parking opportunity with the church. He stated that he does 161
like the idea and looks forward to this moving forward. 162
163
Nester agreed that it seems the applicant has gone the extra mile. 164
165
Amic commented that the traffic concern is the part that will matter the most if this moves 166
forward. He stated that the applicant has come twice for input and that shows that they care. 167
He stated that this would be a business with a local owner, which is a great fit for Uptown 168
Hamel. He stated that the City could wait and wait for the perfect fit on Hamel Road, but this 169
is an ideal option to have a local business owner. He believed that this should move forward. 170
He stated that in regard to outdoor seating he does not see why that would be an issue. 171
172
Finke explained that the outdoor seating regulation has been in place since the Uptown 173
Hamel district was created but did not believe that exists in other zoning districts. He noted 174
that outdoor seating will be a part of the discussion tonight relating to the Uptown Hamel 175
regulations. 176
177
Amic stated that he likes outdoor seating and believes that it is a good fit. He agreed with 178
clockwise parking circulation, if that could be worked out. 179
180
Nielsen stated that this is a fabulous idea. She noted that the shared parking with the church 181
would also provide an improved situation for church patrons, helping some of those folks to 182
avoid crossing the road. 183
184
Reid stated that a takeout restaurant will have people coming and going and agrees that there 185
should be an entrance and exit with a clear traffic pattern to avoid conflicts. She stated that 186
she likes the building materials. She stated that if Uptown Hamel is going to be developed, 187
there will be more traffic. She noted that her concern with this request is that there would be 188
peak demand times and a clear traffic pattern would be helpful. She noted that perhaps there 189
could be an employee that runs orders out to vehicles as well. 190
191
Finke noted that this will move forward for City Council review the following week. 192
193
6. Public Hearing – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive – Tom and Jim Ditter – Concept Plan 194
Review for Subdivision of 4 Lots into 5 Lots 195
196
Finke stated that the Commission and Council reviewed a concept the previous summer for 197
six lots but following the wetland delineation it was determined that there was not sufficient 198
acreage for six lots and therefore the concept has been amended to five lots. He stated that 199
the concept plan is coming forward as there is a unique set of requirements under the 200
Comprehensive Plan and zoning which would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and 201
rezoning. He stated that there are four existing lots with a total of 25 acres on the subject site, 202
which are zoned rural residential. He noted that two of the properties already have sewer 203
connections allocated. He stated that currently the lots have an odd layout, which is how this 204
process arose. He displayed the proposed subdivision, noting that lots one and four are have 205
connections to the sewer system and the applicant would propose to shrink those lots to a 206
suburban lot size. He noted that the extra land would then create an additional rural lot. He 207
stated that a private road would be needed off Holy Name Drive to access the five lots. He 208
stated that the property is guided rural residential but two lots are currently included in the 209
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). He stated that general feedback is requested 210
5
tonight prior to the applicant determining whether to submit a formal application for a 211
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning request. 212
213
Nielsen stated that she has a house on the lake connected to the sewer. She asked if this 214
would add two additional homes to the sewer. 215
216
Finke stated that two homes are already connected to the sewer and this would not add to 217
that, no additional homes would be connected to the sewer. He explained that one of the lots 218
is in a life estate and therefore that connection may be delayed until the life estate expires. 219
He stated that even though the lots would not have municipal water, they would have 220
municipal sewer. He provided background information on the previous rezoning that 221
occurred with the lots along the lake that were rezoned suburban residential after the sewer 222
connections occurred. He stated that this request would actually reduce the MUSA because 223
the two lot sizes would be shrunk to two acres rather than the existing seven acres. 224
225
Amic asked if this would be applicable to other properties. 226
227
Finke stated that there are some properties zoned rural residential that exceed 30,000 square 228
feet. He noted that there is one property that has the 30,000 square feet plus an additional 229
five acres, which would be a similar situation. He noted that each application would need to 230
stand on its own merit and no additional sewer entitlements would be given. 231
232
Nielsen asked how many lots are similarly situated. 233
234
Finke replied that there is one other property that would be similar. 235
236
Reid stated that property would need to justify their request, should that be desired in the 237
future. 238
239
Jim Ditter, 2052 Holy Name Drive, stated that he, his mother and his brother live in three of 240
the lots on the property. He stated that property has been in his family for many years and is 241
served by one driveway. He noted that this request would replat to provide separate 242
driveways for each of the lots. He explained that it is difficult to sell or market a lot with a 243
shared driveway for all the properties. He stated that they brought a concept forward the 244
previous summer but there was not enough property to create six lots following the 245
delineation. He noted that this would add one additional lot to the four existing lots. He 246
noted that the adjacent property has been rezoned suburban residential and therefore their two 247
sewer lots would not be an island and would be similarly zoned to adjacent property. He 248
appreciated the input from the Commission. 249
250
Reid opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. 251
252
Tom Ditter stated that they have already been through the concept plan process previously 253
but stalled out with the delineation. He stated that they have been working with staff since 254
that time in attempt to make the request work. He stated that the Ditters are longtime Medina 255
residents and are not trying to make a killing off this request. He stated that they will still 256
remain in Medina. 257
258
Suzie Sween, 2112 Holy Name Drive, stated that she has lived on the same street as the 259
Ditters for her entire life. She stated that the Ditters have been in Medina for their entire lives 260
and have relatives that date back 100 years. She stated that she enjoys having them as her 261
neighbors and support their application to divide their property. She noted that she would 262
have even approved six lots. She stated that she is not concerned with the number of lots, she 263
6
simply wants them to remain her neighbors. She noted that there is a considerable amount of 264
runoff that comes to her property from a culvert on the Ditter property. She asked that the 265
issue be mitigated during this process as there have been issues on her property. 266
267
Finke confirmed that stormwater management would be triggered during the subdivision 268
process. 269
270
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. 271
272
Nielsen stated that she supports the request. 273
274
Amic stated that he also supports the request. He noted that once the lots would be developed 275
the stormwater concerns would be addressed as well. 276
277
Nester asked how the lots would need to change to meet the width requirements. 278
279
Finke explained that there are multiple options that could be utilized to provide the necessary 280
width. 281
282
Galzki stated that as long as the lot size standards are met, he would support the request. 283
284
Reid stated that there is adjacent low density residential and therefore it would make sense to 285
rezone those lots. She stated that she would also be happy to see lots two, three and five 286
preserved as rural residential. She stated that they are beautiful lots, and this would preserve 287
that. 288
289
Finke stated that the intent would be to move this forward for City Council review the 290
following week. 291
292
7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to 293
Regulations of the Uptown Hamel Zoning District 294
295
Reid asked and confirmed that the public hearing for Item Seven and Item Eight could be 296
combined into one public hearing. 297
298
Finke stated that there are two ordinances for consideration tonight related to the Uptown 299
Hamel area. He noted that this would be one of the last actions to make the zoning 300
regulations consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that staff will continue to look 301
at Uptown Hamel to determine what additionally could be done to support development. He 302
provided additional information related to density, noting that staff would suggest eliminating 303
two of the zoning districts and rezoning all of the properties in Uptown Hamel into this 304
zoning district. He noted that this would allow the full range of density specified in the 305
Comprehensive Plan to occur throughout Uptown Hamel. He identified the properties that 306
would be proposed to be rezoned. He stated that staff also reviewed a few other 307
noncontroversial items for the district. He noted that the intent would be to allow builds to be 308
continuous, with separate ownership, and have a zero-lot line setback which would be in line 309
with a downtown character. He stated that sauna manufacturing is proposed to be removed as 310
an allowed use. He provided background information noting that there was a previous 311
business that existed on an interim basis, but that business has left and should be removed 312
from the allowed uses. He referenced the outdoor dining element and noted that changes 313
could be made if directed by the Commission and Council. 314
315
Reid opened the public hearing for both Items Seven and Eight at 8:29 p.m. 316
7
317
No comments made. 318
319
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. 320
321
Nester stated that she agrees as presented noted that she likes the language suggested by staff 322
for outdoor seating. 323
324
Reid confirmed the consensus of the Commission to agree with the staff suggestions related 325
to the review process. 326
327
Amic asked for input on the language related to breweries. 328
329
Finke provided additional information noting that production would not be the primary 330
desire, the adjoining taproom would be desired. 331
332
Reid asked the intention of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee to add the two 333
additional properties to this district. 334
335
Finke explained that it was viewed as a continuation of Hamel from the east. 336
337
Motion by Nester, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending 338
the requirements of the Uptown Hamel Zoning District, with the changes noted by the 339
Commission: updating outdoor seating language per staff report and increasing review 340
process threshold. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper and Williams) 341
342
8. Public Hearing – Rezoning of 50 Parcels to the Uptown Hamel Zoning District 343
344
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Amic, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending 345
the official zoning map to rezone various properties to the Uptown Hamel Zoning District. 346
Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper and Williams) 347
348
Finke noted that these ordinances will move forward to the City Council at the July 2nd 349
meeting. 350
351
9. Approval of the May 14, 2019 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 352
353 Motion by Galzki, seconded by Amic, to approve the May 14, 2019, Planning Commission 354
minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper and Williams) 355
356
10. Council Meeting Schedule 357
358
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Amic volunteered 359
to attend in representation of the Commission. 360
361
11. Adjourn 362
363
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Nester, to adjourn the meeting at 8:39 p.m. Motion carried 364
unanimously. 365