HomeMy Public PortalAboutPC Minutes 12-11-18 1
CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday December 11, 2018
1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Albers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Aaron Amic, Kerby Nester, Robin Reid, and
Rashmi Williams.
Absent: Planning Commissioners Cindy Piper and Janet White.
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke, City Council member Lorie Cousineau.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
No comments made.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings
Cousineau reported that this is her last meeting and stated that it has been an honor to serve
on the City Council. She stated that in November the Council conducted the semi-annual
business tours. She reported that the Brockton Lane project will begin in the spring in
partnership with the City of Plymouth. She stated that the Council approved the 3rd Addition
of the Deerhill Preserve development, approving the request from the developer to remove
one lot in order to create a private park. She reported that the general fund budget and levy
were approved at the last City Council meeting. She stated that the Council also approved a
conduit bond, explaining that the City was able to charge a fee for providing a bond for a
school in Minneapolis. She stated that there would not be any risk to Medina as the host city.
She noted that the proceeds from that fee will be used to fund Medina Celebration Day and
will also be disbursed into the park maintenance fee. She stated that the Planning
Commission does have a few vacant positions and the residency requirement has been
reduced from three years to two years. She noted that there are also vacant positions on the
Park Commission.
Albers thanked Cousineau for her service to the City Council for the past four years and for
acting as the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update.
5. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone
Various Properties for Consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Finke stated that there are 35 proposed rezonings of property in order to bring those
properties into consistency with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the
thorough Comprehensive Plan process, which included numerous public input opportunities,
that the City undertook over a number of years. He stated that the plan identifies a primary
goal of preserving the open space and natural resources of the City, which allowing some
opportunities for the City to continue to grow while still maintaining the visions and goals of
the City. He stated that through that process the anticipated uses for the next 20 years were
reviewed and then a more thorough review was done to plan for infrastructure and amenities,
such as parks. He stated that the plan identifies the future land use, identifying areas of the
2
City that are anticipated for future commercial or residential development, and at what
density. He stated that a staging plan was also identified to plan for future development and
residential growth. He stated that the City’s plan is required to be in compliance with the
regional systems and system statements from the Metropolitan Council. He stated that
because the plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council and has been adopted by
Medina, the City now has nine months to update the internal controls of the City to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that staff reviewed the current zoning to
identify areas where changes were made in use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and more
broadly to identify any issues of inconsistency. He stated that a map and table were provided
in the Commission packet detailing the 35 properties identified for rezoning. He provided
additional details on the properties proposed for rezoning, broken down by areas of the City,
reviewing the current zoning and proposed zoning. He noted that the use, such as residential,
commercial, or rural, is determined by the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning implements this
designation.
Reid referenced parcels 15 and 19, which are proposed to be changed from mixed use
business to commercial highway and asked for details.
Finke replied that the mixed used business designation in the old plan allowed for a
combination of commercial and high-density residential. The rezoning was proposed because
the City guided the property for commercial use in the updated Comp Plan, and residential
uses would not be anticipated within a commercial land use.
Reid asked for the previous zoning of those parcels prior to 2010.
Finke stated that those parcels were zoned for business development going back to 2000.
Williams asked the desired action from the Commission tonight.
Finke explained that staff is looking for a recommendation on the proposed rezonings, using
the Comprehensive Plan as a guide.
Albers asked for additional details on the commercial highway and mixed-use business.
Finke clarified that one is a zoning district while the other is a land use.
Nester asked if the zoning could be changed to commercial neighborhood and still remain
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finke stated that is the less intensive district and could be an option.
Albers opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Finke noted that staff received comments electronically which were provided to the
Commission and will be entered as a part of the record.
Amic stated that they are on the Planning Commission because they love the City, just like
everyone else, and are serving as volunteers to do the best they can for the future of the City.
Jennifer Palm, 1432 County Road 29, stated that she would like to request additional
discussion regarding the zoning on their property. She stated that they have been attempting
to develop on this property for 2.5 years for a senior care facility and now Elim Care is
developing across the street as they were able to gain approval from Maple Plain. She stated
3
that in order to build the number of units specified for their parcel, with the required parking,
they would need five stories. She stated that due to the market changes, developing 24 units
on two acres would be extremely difficult. She stated that she has correspondence from the
City and Metropolitan Council which suggested seven to 12 units per acre, which she
believed would be more developable.
Larry Palm stated that they also own 1400 Baker Park Road and developed the retail center.
He stated that they paid for the utilities to be brought to the property which will then be used
for the property at 1472 Baker Park Road. He stated that he and that that property owner
came forward within the last year or two with development proposals. He stated that he
spends the money bringing the utilities services to an area that City is not approving for
development and is not designating appropriate zoning which would allow for development.
He stated that he continues to pay taxes on property that cannot be developed.
Mrs. Palm noted that they own additional properties in Medina that they pay taxes on and
maintain.
Reid stated that perhaps it would make sense to review the proposed zoning for those parcels.
Finke stated that the density requirements were identified in the Comprehensive Plan and the
proposed zoning mirrors that density. He stated that if the question is density, that would be a
question of the Comprehensive Plan and not the zoning. He stated that the City can look at
amending the Comprehensive Plan, perhaps to eight units per acre. He noted that on a two-
acre site, that would not have a large impact on the City’s density requirements, however,
changing the density for all high density sites would likely cause problems. He stated that
perhaps the City could carve out a lower high-density range.
Amic asked the perfect use for the land owned by the Palms, as the memory care unit is no
longer an option.
Mr. Palm replied that it would depend upon what the market will allow. He stated that he has
previous attempted retail/commercial and townhomes and there was not interest. He stated
that to place a 12 unit per acre minimum on a two-acre parcel does not mechanically work.
He stated that a comment was made in the past that their parcel would be tied to the
neighboring parcel to allow a larger project. He stated that if a developer has to go through
an additional step of rezoning, the developer moves on.
Mrs. Palm stated that happened on this site as they had previous brought forward a request for
a memory care facility on this site which the Council did not approve because of the process
of updating the Comprehensive Plan, and Elim Care went right across the street and built in
Maple Plain.
Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, asked for clarification on the process. He stated that
he has been a part of many of the Comprehensive Plan discussions and asked the purpose of
the meeting tonight.
Finke stated that the Metropolitan Council and City Council have approved and adopted the
plan and now staff is going through the process of identifying inconsistencies between the
existing zoning and the adopted Comprehensive Plan to bring those properties into
compliance prior to the nine-month deadline specified by the Metropolitan Council. He
stated that there were land use changes under the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning needs
to be updated.
4
Mr. Hoglund asked if some or all of the 35 could be approved or eliminated from this request.
Finke stated that while some properties could be eliminated from the discussion tonight, there
would still need to be a different rezoning considered and applied prior to the nine-month
deadline.
Mr. Hoglund asked if additional property could be rezoned that is not included on the list.
Finke confirmed that additional properties that are identified as inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan could be added and rezoned. He stated that a property owner can
always request a rezoning of their property at any time.
Mr. Hoglund stated that he owns land on Brockton Lane which abuts the City of Plymouth
and would think the nature of progress would allow for that land to continue to develop in a
similar way to the property in Plymouth. He stated that his property is not even included for
development in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Finke stated that the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed, and updates are made every ten years.
Albers stated that he was part of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and the
comment was made that residents wanted to ensure that residential development is shared
across the community rather than focusing that development in one area. He stated that the
property referenced by Mr. Hoglund is not included in the MUSA, even though there are
municipal utilities in Plymouth. He explained that the City planned for the minimum number
of units required by the Metropolitan Council system statements.
Mr. Hoglund asked if a developer wished to develop the parcel, the development would then
require five-acre+ homes sites, rather than a denser suburban style development. He asked
that someone look at that parcel again as it would logically develop in a similar manner to the
property in Plymouth. He noted that the utilities are available on the neighboring parcel and
is astounded that development is not planned for the next 20 years.
Finke confirmed that the property could be developed with rural lots.
James Peterson, 812 Meander Road, stated that he has lived happily in Medina for 33 years.
He stated that the plan as proposed would change the zoning of his property to make his
property unsaleable. He stated that his health is not in the best condition and he is worried
about the prospect of his home if his wife is left alone as she would be stuck. He stated that if
the property remains as currently zoned, the property could always be developed in some area
and his property could be developed. He believed that the proposed rezoning would take
away the value of his property. He stated that over the years his property has been chipped
into by roadway, his neighbors across the road have been taken away and he would like the
City to stop and just leave his property as it is.
Susan Nordstrom, 4200 Foxberry Court, stated that she is adjacent to parcel 15, which abuts
Mr. Peterson’s property. She stated that she received the notification because of the
proximity to their property. She stated that went she went to the City website to find more
information, six months of meeting notes were missing, that have since been posted. She
stated that she attempted to learn the difference between mixed use and commercial highway.
She stated that the takeaway for her would be that mixed use would have a maximum height
of two stories while commercial highway would have 3.5 units. She stated that she also
believed that commercial highway property was all adjacent to Highway 55, whereas this
parcel is not along Highway 55. She stated that she never thought she would have
5
commercial property right behind her home. She stated that she works from home and all her
windows face parcel 15. She asked where the traffic from a commercial development would
go in that area. She stated that she has met a lot of great neighbors through this process and
appreciated the ability for the public to provide input tonight. She asked the Commission to
think about what they would want in their own backyards.
Tom Rocco, 4235 Foxberry Court, stated that he moved to his property in May of 2018 and
was pretty stunned to receive a letter that commercial highway development would be going
in behind his home. He stated that he began to do research and all of the other commercial
highway property is located on Highway 55. He stated that this parcel proposed for
commercial highway is in the middle of residential properties and was unsure why
commercial highway zoning would be appropriate for that property. He stated that he
reached out to land development experts who stated that this was an example of extremely
poor land management. He stated that he was disappointed that while he only had ten days to
prepare for this meeting, he went to the Planning Commission website and was not able to
find minutes from any time after he moved to Medina in May. He recognized that Finke was
able to post those minutes once alerted to the issue. He asked if the Planning Commission
would want commercial development behind their homes.
Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, stated that his property is north of the Peterson property and his
property extends into the wetlands. He stated that he moved to his property in 1997 and was
involved in the development of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan, attending every meeting as a
resident to provide input. He stated that at that time the desire was to keep the area rural and
low density but noted that over time changes were made. He stated that a few years ago the
City Council was pushing for townhomes on Clydesdale, and even with objections from
residents, the City Council allowed that development to go in. He stated that now the City
wants to take property surrounded by residential properties and push in a gas station or
similar commercial development. He noted that the site is also surrounded by wetland and
asked the amount of buildable area that would be available on that property. He stated that
filling in wetlands to allow commercial development would ruin the character of the area. He
stated that every public hearing he has attended has been a public hearing where it has been
said that things have already been done. He was unsure the point of a public hearing at that
point. He stated that some of these changes will devalue properties, using the example of the
Peterson property. He asked the Commission to rethink this plan.
Eric Dahmer, 4470 Shorewood Trail, stated that he sits on the HOA Board for Foxberry
Farms and noted that he is speaking tonight on his own behalf. He stated that he is hearing
concern with the proposed zoning of commercial highway for lots 19 and 15. He stated that
within his neighborhood is 138 homes, representing up to 800 residents. He stated that if you
add the other two neighborhoods that would be about one fifth of the population of the City
of Medina. He stated that the people are concerned because of the nature, feel and density of
the proposed zoning compared to the zoning that surrounds the properties. He stated that the
commercial development that exists is similar to a home office that has minimal traffic during
the daytime. He stated that the concern is with the activity that is allowed within the
commercial highway zoning district, such as a gas station or fast food restaurant. He stated
that there are lower intensity zoning districts that would ease the minds of some residents. He
stated that he would feel a little better with the neighborhood commercial zoning, as that will
keep the intensity of the parcel to a much more manageable level.
Craig Theis, 900 Fox Path Court, stated that his family moved to Medina four years ago to a
family friendly neighborhood. He stated that they bike around the neighborhood and the
thought of a 3.5 story building on that property seems totally out of place. He stated that he
also sits on the HOA Board for Foxberry Farms and there is a lot of concern from the
6
residents in that neighborhood. He asked the Commission to think of a different zoning for
that parcel. He stated that commercial highway zoning off the highway does not make sense.
Kristin Toste, 4650 Foxberry Drive, stated that 20 years ago she and her husband built a
home in an open area. She stated that seven years ago her child was involved in an accident
at Hackamore and she campaigned to get the stoplight put in. She referenced the high
number of accidents at that intersection. She stated that her concern is CR 116 and the
additional traffic that a commercial highway development would bring to the area. She
believed that the traffic counts are already maxed out and the City does not have any control
because it is a County road. She believed that the plan should be amended to move that
commercial highway parcel because 116 cannot handle that additional traffic.
David Wain, 4442 Bluebell Trail S, referenced parcel 20 and asked for details on the purple
area below that parcel.
Finke clarified that parcel 20 was subject to a subdivision a few months prior and there has
been preliminary approval to divide the property as shown. He stated that the business park
designation is a lower intensity designation and therefore would apply to the north parcel. He
reviewed the permitted uses within the business park designation.
Joe Cavanaugh stated that his family has been farming the land for over 60 years and owns
parcel 29, which is a big investment on their part. He stated that when they purchased the
property it was zoned for development in 2025. He acknowledged that development has been
pushed out. He stated that if the property remained as rural commercial holding it would
allow for something in the mean time before the property could be developed with utilities,
rather than changing the property to rural residential. He requested to keep the property as
rural commercial holding which would allow, they to do something in the interim.
Mary Beth Demott, 3075 Wild Flower Trail, stated that her concern is with the properties
within the eastern portion of the City. She stated that her concern is with the congestion in
that part of Medina. She stated that Plymouth has also developed a large number of homes
on that border and asked that those properties not be rezoned to rural residential. She stated
that perhaps those properties to moved across Medina Road along Holy Name Road. She
asked that the property be left as farmland.
Albers closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
Albers reviewed the options for the Planning Commission, noting that a recommendation
could be made to the City Council or the Commission could ask staff to review the comments
made tonight to determine if there are changes that should be made.
Williams asked how the overall planning would be impacted if some parcels are removed
tonight.
Finke explained that the City has until May to determine the official zoning controls that
bring the properties into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore action does
not have to occur tonight. He stated that there are properties in the City that are already
zoned within these specific zoning districts and therefore adjusting the zoning districts
themselves would have ramifications on those other properties. He stated that the
Comprehensive Plan is adopted and if a change is proposed to that plan, an amendment
would need to be made to the plan. He stated that the Metropolitan Council would review the
amendment based on their system statement and mandates for the City. He stated that there
could be implications depending upon the changes that are made.
7
Nester stated that she would like to have more discussion related to the commercial highway
parcels and the parcel requiring 24 units on two acres providing the parcel numbers 15, 19,
32, and 34.
Reid agreed with the comments made by Nester. She referenced parcels 15 and 19 which has
an office building across the street. She asked the zoning of that parcel.
Finke replied that parcel was developed under a PUD with business park as the underlying
designation.
Reid stated that perhaps parcels 15 and 19 are zoned to business park which would have a
lower intensity use.
Finke stated that business and commercial are separate designations within the
Comprehensive Plan, with different objectives for each. He reviewed the types of uses that
would be allowed under a business use compared to commercial use.
Reid asked if there has been communication with the owners of parcel.
Finke stated that the property owner called with questions but not with interest in
construction.
Reid stated that business park seems like it may be a better fit because of the adjacent uses
and asked if an amendment would be needed to the Comprehensive Plan.
Finke agreed that an amendment would be needed but noted that would be straightforward
and would not impact the system statements and projections of the City. He stated that
business would allow warehouse and industrial. He stated that another option would be
neighborhood commercial which would lower the intensity of the use.
Reid stated that she is also concerned with the properties on Baker Park Road as there needs
to be practical guidance as to what can be done on the property. She believed that the City
owes the property owners some discussion of what could be done and what would need to
change.
Amic stated that the discussion tonight has focused on parcels 15, 19, 32, 34, and 29 and the
parcels off Medina Road. He stated that the parcels on Medina Road were previously
discussed and believed that removing that would have major implications. He stated that
there were stipulations on buffers and development requirements and therefore he feels
confident with the parcels on Medina Road remaining as designated. He referenced parcel 29
and was unsure if there are implications that would result from the request.
Finke replied that he did not think there would be implications to the overall Comprehensive
Plan if the City considered commercial uses in the Future Development Area as requested by
the property owner of parcel 29. He stated that the future development area does not
designate a use and those properties have continued to remain as rural until the MUSA
extends to that area. He stated that there have not been a lot of businesses on septic and
wells. He stated that if the Commission or Council are interested in looking at properties in
the long-range plan to open certain properties up for business, he did not believe it would not
be inconsistent with the future development area. He commented that the individual property
should be reviewed to ensure that the property would be able to support commercial traffic.
8
He stated that there have been failures for businesses that have used septic and well in the
past.
Amic echoed the comments that he wants to understand if the City is giving a property owner
math they cannot work with. He stated that he would ask to pull property 29 for further
review. He stated that parcels 15 and 19 are difficult because of how they are currently
zoned. He asked what would happen if the parcels were left as designated as mixed use.
Finke stated that the current mixed-use district would not match the commercial designation
and therefore one of those would need to change. He stated that when the property was
designated as mixed use back in 2010, there were surrounding properties also designated
mixed use. Collectively, these parcels could be viewed as having provided a mix of uses.
The other parcels all developed with residential uses. The remaining parcels may prove
difficult to plan a mix of uses on one acre. He stated that an existing lot can continue to be
used as such, the zoning only impacts the redevelopment should the property owner be
interested in selling for the purpose of redevelopment rather than the continued use.
Amic stated that he would support the comment that perhaps an office park would be more
appropriate for those parcels.
Albers stated that the comments have all stated that they would like the property to remain as
currently zoned. He stated that under the current zoning, there would be a commercial use on
the property because of the residential property that was already developed on the broader
portion of the overall mixed-use site.
Williams asked if there are things that can be done with approvals that would specify
buffering and lighting requirements to minimize the impacts on the adjacent residential
properties.
Finke stated that he believes the City does a good job of enacting such requirements. He
stated that there are different requirements in the different zoning districts, providing
examples from neighborhood commercial.
Williams agreed with the comments that have been made regarding 29, 32, and 34. She
stated that in regard to parcels 15 and 19, she understands the concerns with traffic in that
area. She asked if there is a way to work with the HOA to limit what could be built on that
property or to allow additional input from the HOA.
Finke agreed that is part of the reason the Commission holds a public hearing. He stated that
staff can continue to have conversations with individuals, but the zoning would have the tools
to limit what could be constructed.
Williams stated that she would be leaning more towards neighborhood commercial, as that
would seem less intensive and match the comments that were made by a resident regarding
the hours of operation and low traffic.
Finke stated that if the parcels are not to be planned for commercial development, one would
need to decide what use the parcel would be planned for. If residential, what density would
be developed, recognizing it is at the intersection of an arterial and collector roadway,
adjacent to office uses.
Nester stated that it seems that the parcel is a continuation of the business across the road
because of the separation of the wetland between the residential and the busy road.
9
Amic agreed that a continuation of a low intensity commercial use would be appropriate.
Finke stated that the commercial neighborhood district is not applied to any other properties
in the City, and therefore making changes to the zoning district would not have impacts on
any other properties in the City, therefore additional restrictions could be made to that zoning
district if desired. He stated that there may be additional opportunities to use commercial
neighborhood in the future.
Albers thanked everyone for attending the meeting and providing input tonight. He stated
that the job of the Commission is to make a recommendation for the City Council to consider.
He stated that he is leaning towards approving the amendment removing parcels 15, 19, 32
and 29 to have further discussion at a future meeting.
Nester asked if commercial neighborhood could be recommended for 15 and 19 as that
zoning district could be tweaked in the future.
Reid stated that she does not feel that she knows enough at this time to make that
recommendation and therefore would support removing the parcels mentioned for further
discussion.
Albers noted that another option would be to table the amendment entirely to continue the
discussion while the other option would be to recommend adoption of the amendment except
for the parcels mentioned (15, 19, 29, 32, and 34). He stated that he would prefer
recommending the parcels as proposed, holding back parcels 15, 19, 29, 32, and 34.
Finke stated that if the City is going to review 32 and 34, those are similar to two other
properties that are proposed to be similarly zoned, noting parcels 6, 8, 9, and 10. He stated
that while those property owners did not make comment, it would be a similar issue and
logic.
Amic asked if the request from the property owner of parcel 29 could be approved without
implications.
Albers stated that could probably be done for the entire strip.
There was a comment from a resident that stated that he is happy with the designation of rural
residential for the properties near him, parcels 27 and 28. He stated that he does not oppose
the change for parcel 29.
Finke stated that because there are similar circumstances, he would advocate looking at all
the parcels and not just the property owners that spoke. He stated that the Commission can
continue discussion on the entire ordinance, with the discussion focused on the input received
tonight, as there is not a rushed need for a decision. He stated that it seemed that the Planning
Commission is open to a neighborhood commercial zoning for parcels 15 and 19. He stated
that it might be helpful if the public is interested in providing input on a possible designation
of neighborhood commercial.
There was a comment that Mr. Peterson could sell his home and the property could remain as
a home. He was unsure if a buyer would be able to purchase the property and remain in the
home. He asked what could be built on that pad without the properties developing in
conjunction, noting that it would need to be a small business as the buildable area of the site
is limited.
10
Amic agreed that whatever commercial use would need to be a smaller less intensive use.
Finke stated that there are interim uses allowed for uses that exist prior to the change in
zoning. He stated that the home could remain and continue as the use, regardless of the
zoning. He stated that protections are built in for transitional zoning changes, he stated that
the home would be a permitted use and would not become nonconforming.
The resident asked if Mr. Peterson sold his home, could the buyer then remodel and change
the home.
Finke confirmed that those protections are built into the transitional zoning district.
Another resident commented that parcel 19 is owned by an LLC and is unsure of the
buildable space on parcel 19. He stated that normally someone would fill the wetland, but it
has been stated that cannot be done and perhaps the LLC is waiting for Mr. Peterson to sell
his property in order to construct a project in conjunction.
Finke agreed that it would be a reasonable assumption that the properties would be developed
together.
The resident stated that while people have made comments that the property could be
developed as a gas station or fast food restaurant, that is unlikely because of the site layout
and buildable area.
It was asked and confirmed that the City would not allow an access to that property from CR
116, the access would need to be provided from Meander.
A comment was made that commercial highway would not make sense as Medina’s
definition of commercial highway is property along Highway 55.
Williams stated that it would be helpful to know the amount of buildable land to determine
what could potentially be built on the commercial property.
Motion by Amic, seconded by Williams, to table the ordinance amending the official zoning
map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan,
requesting additional information on the parcels discussed in detail 15, 19, 29, 32, 34 and
other similar properties. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper and White)
6. Approval of the October 9, 2018 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion by Reid, seconded by Williams, to approve the October 9, 2018, Planning
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper and White)
7. Council Meeting Schedule
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Albers volunteered
to attend in representation of the Commission.
8. Adjourn
Motion by Williams, seconded by Amic, to adjourn the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.