HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-13-16 PC Minutes 1
CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
1. Call to Order: Chairperson V. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Chris Barry, Kim Murrin, Laurie Rengel,
Robin Reid, Victoria Reid and Janet White.
Absent: None.
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and Assistant City Planner Deb Peterson.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
No comments made.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings
Anderson reported that the Council met one week prior to consider the request from
AutoMotorPlex, noting that the City Attorney provided an explanation of his analysis of the
EAW and that his opinion is that the City did not have to require an EAW and could therefore
be free to move forward on the PUD. He noted that the City Attorney also provided
clarification on the use of the special events permit and how that tool can be used to control
the events. He stated that a vote was not taken as the Council wanted to ensure that the
recommendations had been updated and noted that the item will come back on the Consent
Agenda at the next meeting. He stated that the Council also received a presentation of the
budget and noted that Medina is in extremely good financial health.
Albers asked for more clarification on the special events permit.
Anderson stated that the special events permit would be issued on a per event basis.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update.
5. Approval of the November 9, 2016 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion by Albers, seconded by White, to approve the November 9, 2016, Planning
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously.
6. Public Hearing – City of Medina Comprehensive Plan – Decennial Update
Finke stated that he would attempt to cover the highlights as there is a lot of detail and the
Commission has reviewed most of the document in previous meetings. He stated that the
process to update the plan was started one year ago, and reviewed the purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan. He noted that there have been eight community meetings throughout
the process to obtain input from the community in addition to the work of the Steering
Committee, Planning Commission and the use of the online forum. He explained how the
guides from the Metropolitan Council are used, noting that there was a reduction to the Met
2
Council system statements and the City therefore was able to reduce their plans for
development appropriately. He reviewed the vision statement which was used to develop the
community goals and specific objectives within the plan. He explained that growth is
planned in conjunction with infrastructure to ensure that the growth does not outpace the
infrastructure within the City. He stated that one major change to the plan was the reduction
in planned residential development compared to the previous plan in order to meet the
minimum requirements of the Met Council. He noted that there was also some delay for the
development of residential properties. He identified an area that had previously been planned
for commercial but is now proposed to be planned as high density residential. He highlighted
the specific areas within the City that have a changed proposed land use as a result of the
updating of the plan. He suggested that discussion focus on the properties with proposed land
use changes from what exists today. He displayed the staging and growth map which
identifies when properties could be developed under the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that
the business and commercial properties are not staged for development and could be
developed as requests are received. He noted that the parks and trails chapter of the plan is
highly impacted by the land use map. He noted that the implementation chapter addresses the
things the City would need to do in order to come into line with the Comprehensive Plan,
noting that once adopted the City has nine months to be in compliance with the plan. He
noted that there are relatively low needs in terms of the sanitary sewer and identified the
needs related to water. He provided highlights of the transportation chapter of the plan,
noting that the City does not have control over the County and State roadways and reviewing
proposed improvements.
Albers asked if the Met Council has provided a transit plan for any cities outside of the light
rail.
Finke stated that although the Met Council does provide plans for some cities, they have not
provided anything for Medina. He explained that Medina is at a disadvantage as some
neighboring communities provide their own independent systems. He stated that if the City
were interested it would make most sense to work with one of the neighboring communities
to expand their transit system. He stated that this is the formal public hearing for the draft
plan, although there have been many opportunities to provide feedback prior to tonight. He
explained the submittal process that would be followed moving forward, which includes
allowances for the necessary comment periods.
Chairperson Reid opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, stated that he also owns several properties in
Medina. He stated that he lives next to a major development being done by Lennar in
Corcoran and noted some plans for future development from Lennar that is in both cities and
is expected in 2017.
Finke stated that he was unsure that would occur in 2017 but acknowledged that the
development would take place in the next few years.
Mr. Hoglund referenced the staging plan, noting that he is a big fan of Medina and
specifically Hamel which is an unbelievably hidden gem and asset of the community. He
stated that his concern is that everything is being pushed along Highway 55 and he has not
seen anything much being done in Hamel. He stated that there are some forces outside of the
City and asked that the City think about spreading things out a bit to ensure Hamel does not
get lost in the planning effort.
3
Andy Jacobson, representing Dellcroft Farms, acknowledged that they are a bit late with their
participation in the plan as their concern came with the AutoMotorPlex. He stated that they
will find themselves across the road from a site with 63 percent site coverage. He stated that
the concern is with the transition between residential and commercial. He asked that the City
consider the 20.5 eastern most acres of the Dellcroft Farms property to be guided to low
density residential to help create some transition between the AutoMotorPlex and rural
residential, similar to what was done near the Wealshire property.
Tim Whiten, representing five property owners east of Arrowhead Drive, stated that
throughout this process their properties have been changed from medium to low density with
delayed staging. He stated that the property owners accept the changes but just want to
ensure that the guiding is not changed further.
Chairperson V. Reid closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Chairperson V. Reid noted that there have been many discussions prior to tonight’s meeting
and noted that while changes can be made there would need to be a balance to ensure that the
desired outcome is still reached. She suggested that grammatical changes be provided to staff
outside of the meeting. She noted on page 13, objective three, and noted that the Steering
Committee discussed this item and confirmed the consensus of the Commission that the
guidelines be developed. She noted that the guidelines would be developed through a special
committee in the future.
Finke stated that there is a lot of detail within the plan and noted that there are some pretty
significant changes to the land use within Hamel. He noted that within the existing plan there
is a requirement for seven to 45 units per acre across the Uptown Hamel land use. He stated
that within the draft plan a fair amount of flexibility was provided lowering the minimum
density and maximum density to range of four to 15 units per acre, with flexibility to go up to
20 units per acre with special conditions. He noted that is a significant change that would
still allow for fairly dense residential development but also provide flexibility to create a
smaller development.
Murrin agreed that the lower density would be more appropriate.
R. Reid stated that perhaps a task force should be created for Uptown Hamel as there have
been a number of applications that have come forward that have not come to fruition.
Finke provided additional clarification on the mixed-use land use which is a relatively low
density housing land use, between 3.4 to four unit per acre. He explained the requirement
that one third to one quarter of the units be a higher density housing product, such as an
apartment building or tight townhome, while the remainder of the site could be single family
development. He stated that land use helps the City achieve the minimum of 253 higher
density housing units without identifying a specific property for a higher density land use.
Chairperson V. Reid noted that months have been spent on the proposed land uses and asked
for the input of the Commission.
White commented that the Steering Committee has done a great job on the land use as
designated and noted that if any changes were made, there would need to be changes made in
another area to balance the totals. She confirmed the consensus of the Commission to accept
the land use section as proposed.
4
Chairperson V. Reid referenced a letter that was received in regard to affordable housing
from Housing Justice, which expressed concerns.
R. Reid noted that the letter was dated December 1st, although the latest version of the plan
was dated December 6th.
Finke replied that the plan did not change significantly before or after the letter. He stated
that within the system statements from the Met Council, which guides cities, there are
minimum requirements that are laid out explicitly. He stated that the minimum requirement
is that the allocation of expected affordable housing be identified for the next 20 years and
that the City plans for that within the land use and the programs that could be used. He stated
that staff believes that the minimum requirements have been met.
Barry stated that it appears the letter wants more put into the plan although that is not
required. He did not see a value in changing the plan to be more specific to meet the
concerns of the letter.
R. Reid noted that there are no developers proposing to construct this type of housing in
Medina and therefore the City can respond to requests that come in but would not need to be
more explicit with details.
Murrin stated that she talked to Finke earlier about the letter, noting that the organization is
more geared for advocacy. She stated that the City has met the requirements of the Met
Council and therefore does not have to meet the requests of the letter.
Rengel stated that she believes the plan has an adequate balance of land uses and affordable
housing.
Albers noted that the City planned accordingly to identify where affordable housing would be
a good fit based on the available transportation.
Kathy Martin, Chair of the Steering Committee, stated that the City does not have a legal
obligation to subsidize affordable housing. She stated that while some on the Committee did
not support additional workforce housing, others believe that workforce housing provides a
benefit to the community. She hoped that in the next few years there would be leadership in
the City to help bring that into fruition and provide more workforce housing to the City.
Barry referenced 4.3, noting that AMI is addressed in two sections and asked the percentages
that are reflected and which AMI is used in the calculations.
Finke replied that the AMI should correspond to the table and noted that he would make the
necessary changes. He noted that additional information was added to the school districts as
the school district has an impact on growth pressures and vice versa. Finke noted that the
Park Commission took the lead on the park and trail chapter.
Chairperson V. Reid stated that she is happy to see the hoped parks designation and
referenced the 10 acre Fields of Medina park that she believed was going to be larger and
provide a connection to Foxberry.
Finke noted that if that is a continued objective it should be called out and noted that perhaps
the Park Commission should review that.
5
Chairperson V. Reid noted that technically you would have to drive and if connectivity is a
goal, there should be a trail connection for walkers.
White stated that she believed that the Park Commission was waiting for another parcel to
develop before expanding that park. She stated that there was some concern from residents
of Foxberry that did not want to be connected. She acknowledged that now that the park is
developed opinions may have changed.
Finke stated that would be a good discussion point as if more land is desired in that area, that
should be called out in the plan.
Chairperson V. Reid noted that there were also comments regarding connection to
Bridgewater. She confirmed the consensus of the Commission to recommend that the
additional comments be added in regard to the Fields of Medina Park.
Murrin referenced the moving of Highway 101 North and asked what would happen to the
existing 101 and whether Peony would connect back up to 101.
Finke replied that Peony would merge further north. He stated that the City is opposing that
plan from the County.
Murrin asked the advantage to keeping it the way it is now. She asked the odds of Medina
winning the opposition.
Finke replied that the County maintains the roadway and noted that the City did win the
opposition in the previous attempt.
Chairperson V. Reid referenced language regarding bicycle transportation and asked what
would be considered regional destinations.
Finke provided examples of major employment centers, schools and parks.
Chairperson V. Reid asked for more information on the non-motorized transportation plan.
Finke explained that the plan makes more sense when you zoom out as it is a regional plan
that provides connections, such as Baker Park, and a broader system in the neighboring
communities. He stated that the region has not identified assets to the north and east. He
explained that the City would certainly have its own trails in those areas but those would not
necessarily connect directly to the regional plan. He provided additional options for transit,
noting that although not identified in the plan, the City could work with Plymouth to opt into
their transit service. He noted that an additional taxing line item would be included for the
transportation system.
Kathy Martin noted that there was a survey done of residents and was surprised at the number
of residents opposed public transit within the City. She stated that the Commission should be
mindful of that opposition if they choose to recommend adding such statement.
Chairperson V. Reid provided an example of a handicap resident that is not able to get bus
service through Metro Mobility as the City is not a member. She believed that might be an
option to explore for senior and handicap bus service. She stated that perhaps a statement be
added that the City will explore options for seniors and disabled transportation options.
6
White asked if the Comprehensive Plan would be the right place for that statement or whether
staff should just look at options.
It was the consensus of the Commission to amend the statement included in the transportation
plan to add a comment regarding transportation for the disabled and seniors.
Motion by White, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval the draft Comprehensive
Plan as amended. Motion carries unanimously.
7. Council Meeting Schedule
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting on December 20th and Albers volunteered to
attend.
8. Adjourn
Motion by Albers, seconded by R. Reid, to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.