Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-13-16 Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday, December 13, 2016 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson V. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Chris Barry, Kim Murrin, Laurie Rengel, 8 Robin Reid, Victoria Reid and Janet White. 9 10 Absent: None. 11 12 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and Assistant City Planner Deb Peterson. 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 Anderson reported that the Council met one week prior to consider the request from 21 AutoMotorPlex, noting that the City Attorney provided an explanation of his analysis of the 22 EAW and that his opinion is that the City did not have to require an EAW and could therefore 23 be free to move forward on the PUD. He noted that the City Attorney also provided 24 clarification on the use of the special events permit and how that tool can be used to control 25 the events. He stated that a vote was not taken as the Council wanted to ensure that the 26 recommendations had been updated and noted that the item will come back on the Consent 27 Agenda at the next meeting. He stated that the Council also received a presentation of the 28 budget and noted that Medina is in extremely good financial health. 29 30 Albers asked for more clarification on the special events permit. 31 32 Anderson stated that the special events permit would be issued on a per event basis. 33 34 4. Planning Department Report 35 36 Finke provided an update. 37 38 5. Approval of the November 9, 2016 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 39 40 Motion by Albers, seconded by White, to approve the November 9, 2016, Planning 41 Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. 42 43 6. Public Hearing – City of Medina Comprehensive Plan – Decennial Update 44 45 Finke stated that he would attempt to cover the highlights as there is a lot of detail and the 46 Commission has reviewed most of the document in previous meetings. He stated that the 47 process to update the plan was started one year ago, and reviewed the purpose of the 48 Comprehensive Plan. He noted that there have been eight community meetings throughout 49 the process to obtain input from the community in addition to the work of the Steering 50 Committee, Planning Commission and the use of the online forum. He explained how the 51 guides from the Metropolitan Council are used, noting that there was a reduction to the Met 52 2 Council system statements and the City therefore was able to reduce their plans for 53 development appropriately. He reviewed the vision statement which was used to develop the 54 community goals and specific objectives within the plan. He explained that growth is 55 planned in conjunction with infrastructure to ensure that the growth does not outpace the 56 infrastructure within the City. He stated that one major change to the plan was the reduction 57 in planned residential development compared to the previous plan in order to meet the 58 minimum requirements of the Met Council. He noted that there was also some delay for the 59 development of residential properties. He identified an area that had previously been planned 60 for commercial but is now proposed to be planned as high density residential. He highlighted 61 the specific areas within the City that have a changed proposed land use as a result of the 62 updating of the plan. He suggested that discussion focus on the properties with proposed land 63 use changes from what exists today. He displayed the staging and growth map which 64 identifies when properties could be developed under the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that 65 the business and commercial properties are not staged for development and could be 66 developed as requests are received. He noted that the parks and trails chapter of the plan is 67 highly impacted by the land use map. He noted that the implementation chapter addresses the 68 things the City would need to do in order to come into line with the Comprehensive Plan, 69 noting that once adopted the City has nine months to be in compliance with the plan. He 70 noted that there are relatively low needs in terms of the sanitary sewer and identified the 71 needs related to water. He provided highlights of the transportation chapter of the plan, 72 noting that the City does not have control over the County and State roadways and reviewing 73 proposed improvements. 74 75 Albers asked if the Met Council has provided a transit plan for any cities outside of the light 76 rail. 77 78 Finke stated that although the Met Council does provide plans for some cities, they have not 79 provided anything for Medina. He explained that Medina is at a disadvantage as some 80 neighboring communities provide their own independent systems. He stated that if the City 81 were interested it would make most sense to work with one of the neighboring communities 82 to expand their transit system. He stated that this is the formal public hearing for the draft 83 plan, although there have been many opportunities to provide feedback prior to tonight. He 84 explained the submittal process that would be followed moving forward, which includes 85 allowances for the necessary comment periods. 86 87 Chairperson Reid opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. 88 89 Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, stated that he also owns several properties in 90 Medina. He stated that he lives next to a major development being done by Lennar in 91 Corcoran and noted some plans for future development from Lennar that is in both cities and 92 is expected in 2017. 93 94 Finke stated that he was unsure that would occur in 2017 but acknowledged that the 95 development would take place in the next few years. 96 97 Mr. Hoglund referenced the staging plan, noting that he is a big fan of Medina and 98 specifically Hamel which is an unbelievably hidden gem and asset of the community. He 99 stated that his concern is that everything is being pushed along Highway 55 and he has not 100 seen anything much being done in Hamel. He stated that there are some forces outside of the 101 City and asked that the City think about spreading things out a bit to ensure Hamel does not 102 get lost in the planning effort. 103 104 3 Andy Jacobson, representing Dellcroft Farms, acknowledged that they are a bit late with their 105 participation in the plan as their concern came with the AutoMotorPlex. He stated that they 106 will find themselves across the road from a site with 63 percent site coverage. He stated that 107 the concern is with the transition between residential and commercial. He asked that the City 108 consider the 20.5 eastern most acres of the Dellcroft Farms property to be guided to low 109 density residential to help create some transition between the AutoMotorPlex and rural 110 residential, similar to what was done near the Wealshire property. 111 112 Tim Whiten, representing five property owners east of Arrowhead Drive, stated that 113 throughout this process their properties have been changed from medium to low density with 114 delayed staging. He stated that the property owners accept the changes but just want to 115 ensure that the guiding is not changed further. 116 117 Chairperson V. Reid closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. 118 119 Chairperson V. Reid noted that there have been many discussions prior to tonight’s meeting 120 and noted that while changes can be made there would need to be a balance to ensure that the 121 desired outcome is still reached. She suggested that grammatical changes be provided to staff 122 outside of the meeting. She noted on page 13, objective three, and noted that the Steering 123 Committee discussed this item and confirmed the consensus of the Commission that the 124 guidelines be developed. She noted that the guidelines would be developed through a special 125 committee in the future. 126 127 Finke stated that there is a lot of detail within the plan and noted that there are some pretty 128 significant changes to the land use within Hamel. He noted that within the existing plan there 129 is a requirement for seven to 45 units per acre across the Uptown Hamel land use. He stated 130 that within the draft plan a fair amount of flexibility was provided lowering the minimum 131 density and maximum density to range of four to 15 units per acre, with flexibility to go up to 132 20 units per acre with special conditions. He noted that is a significant change that would 133 still allow for fairly dense residential development but also provide flexibility to create a 134 smaller development. 135 136 Murrin agreed that the lower density would be more appropriate. 137 138 R. Reid stated that perhaps a task force should be created for Uptown Hamel as there have 139 been a number of applications that have come forward that have not come to fruition. 140 141 Albers noted that one of the applications was trying to gain additional funding. 142 143 Finke provided additional clarification on the mixed-use land use which is a relatively low 144 density housing land use, between 3.4 to four unit per acre. He explained the requirement 145 that one third to one quarter of the units be a higher density housing product, such as an 146 apartment building or tight townhome, while the remainder of the site could be single family 147 development. He stated that land use helps the City achieve the minimum of 253 higher 148 density housing units without identifying a specific property for a higher density land use. 149 150 Chairperson V. Reid noted that months have been spent on the proposed land uses and asked 151 for the input of the Commission. 152 153 White commented that the Steering Committee has done a great job on the land use as 154 designated and noted that if any changes were made, there would need to be changes made in 155 another area to balance the totals. She confirmed the consensus of the Commission to accept 156 the land use section as proposed. 157 4 158 Chairperson V. Reid referenced a letter that was received in regard to affordable housing 159 from Housing Justice, which expressed concerns. 160 161 R. Reid noted that the letter was dated December 1st, although the latest version of the plan 162 was dated December 6th. 163 164 Finke replied that the plan did not change significantly before or after the letter. He stated 165 that within the system statements from the Met Council, which guides cities, there are 166 minimum requirements that are laid out explicitly. He stated that the minimum requirement 167 is that the allocation of expected affordable housing be identified for the next 20 years and 168 that the City plans for that within the land use and the programs that could be used. He stated 169 that staff believes that the minimum requirements have been met. 170 171 Barry stated that it appears the letter wants more put into the plan although that is not 172 required. He did not see a value in changing the plan to be more specific to meet the 173 concerns of the letter. 174 175 R. Reid noted that there are no developers proposing to construct this type of housing in 176 Medina and therefore the City can respond to requests that come in but would not need to be 177 more explicit with details. 178 179 Murrin stated that she talked to Finke earlier about the letter, noting that the organization is 180 more geared for advocacy. She stated that the City has met the requirements of the Met 181 Council and therefore does not have to meet the requests of the letter. 182 183 Rengel stated that she believes the plan has an adequate balance of land uses and affordable 184 housing. 185 186 Albers noted that the City planned accordingly to identify where affordable housing would be 187 a good fit based on the available transportation. 188 189 Kathy Martin, Chair of the Steering Committee, stated that the City does not have a legal 190 obligation to subsidize affordable housing. She stated that while some on the Committee did 191 not support additional workforce housing, others believe that workforce housing provides a 192 benefit to the community. She hoped that in the next few years there would be leadership in 193 the City to help bring that into fruition and provide more workforce housing to the City. 194 195 Barry referenced 4.3, noting that AMI is addressed in two sections and asked the percentages 196 that are reflected and which AMI is used in the calculations. 197 198 Finke replied that the AMI should correspond to the table and noted that he would make the 199 necessary changes. He noted that additional information was added to the school districts as 200 the school district has an impact on growth pressures and vice versa. Finke noted that the 201 Park Commission took the lead on the park and trail chapter. 202 203 Chairperson V. Reid stated that she is happy to see the hoped parks designation and 204 referenced the 10 acre Fields of Medina park that she believed was going to be larger and 205 provide a connection to Foxberry. 206 207 Finke noted that if that is a continued objective it should be called out and noted that perhaps 208 the Park Commission should review that. 209 210 5 Chairperson V. Reid noted that technically you would have to drive and if connectivity is a 211 goal, there should be a trail connection for walkers. 212 213 White stated that she believed that the Park Commission was waiting for another parcel to 214 develop before expanding that park. She stated that there was some concern from residents 215 of Foxberry that did not want to be connected. She acknowledged that now that the park is 216 developed opinions may have changed. 217 218 Finke stated that would be a good discussion point as if more land is desired in that area, that 219 should be called out in the plan. 220 221 Chairperson V. Reid noted that there were also comments regarding connection to 222 Bridgewater. She confirmed the consensus of the Commission to recommend that the 223 additional comments be added in regard to the Fields of Medina Park. 224 225 Murrin referenced the moving of Highway 101 North and asked what would happen to the 226 existing 101 and whether Peony would connect back up to 101. 227 228 Finke replied that Peony would merge further north. He stated that the City is opposing that 229 plan from the County. 230 231 Murrin asked the advantage to keeping it the way it is now. She asked the odds of Medina 232 winning the opposition. 233 234 Finke replied that the County maintains the roadway and noted that the City did win the 235 opposition in the previous attempt. 236 237 Chairperson V. Reid referenced language regarding bicycle transportation and asked what 238 would be considered regional destinations. 239 240 Finke provided examples of major employment centers, schools and parks. 241 242 Chairperson V. Reid asked for more information on the non-motorized transportation plan. 243 244 Finke explained that the plan makes more sense when you zoom out as it is a regional plan 245 that provides connections, such as Baker Park, and a broader system in the neighboring 246 communities. He stated that the region has not identified assets to the north and east. He 247 explained that the City would certainly have its own trails in those areas but those would not 248 necessarily connect directly to the regional plan. He provided additional options for transit, 249 noting that although not identified in the plan, the City could work with Plymouth to opt into 250 their transit service. He noted that an additional taxing line item would be included for the 251 transportation system. 252 253 Kathy Martin noted that there was a survey done of residents and was surprised at the number 254 of residents opposed public transit within the City. She stated that the Commission should be 255 mindful of that opposition if they choose to recommend adding such statement. 256 257 Chairperson V. Reid provided an example of a handicap resident that is not able to get bus 258 service through Metro Mobility as the City is not a member. She believed that might be an 259 option to explore for senior and handicap bus service. She stated that perhaps a statement be 260 added that the City will explore options for seniors and disabled transportation options. 261 262 6 White asked if the Comprehensive Plan would be the right place for that statement or whether 263 staff should just look at options. 264 265 It was the consensus of the Commission to amend the statement included in the transportation 266 plan to add a comment regarding transportation for the disabled and seniors. 267 268 Motion by White, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval the draft Comprehensive 269 Plan as amended. Motion carries unanimously. 270 271 7. Council Meeting Schedule 272 273 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting on December 20th and Albers volunteered to 274 attend. 275 276 8. Adjourn 277 278 Motion by Albers, seconded by R. Reid, to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Motion 279 carried unanimously. 280