HomeMy Public PortalAboutpc minutes - 02-12-19 1
CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday February 12, 2019
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Aaron Amic, Peter Galzki, Beth Nielsen, Kerby Nester,
Cindy Piper, Robin Reid, and Rashmi Williams.
Absent: None.
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
Jeff Cates, 2400 Cates Ranch Drive, stated that he has been a landowner in Medina that has
three preapproved land splits for development within the Medina development corridor along
Highway 55. He stated that he would like to object to the Comprehensive Plan which puts
his property into a staging area for sewer and water. He stated that the rezoning proposed
tonight would make his property rural, even though there is available sewer and water 30 feet
from the properties. He stated that his family has provided land to the City to relocate
Chippewa Drive and was assessed for the signal on Willow. He stated that there are no other
large properties along the Highway 55 corridor for development and he is unsure why his
property was left out of the development staging.
Reid commented that the Comprehensive Plan update was a two-year process with numerous
public hearings. She explained that the Metropolitan Council has already approved the
Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning will be discussed under agenda item six tonight. She
stated that nothing can be done to change the planning designation as the plan has already
been approved.
Rose Lorsung, on behalf of Mr. Cates, stated that Mr. Cates did not feel informed of the
process of the Comprehensive Plan and is confused by the staging of the property as this is
the only property that would accommodate office/light industrial development within the
Highway 55 corridor. She noted that he has had interest on the site.
Finke stated that the Comprehensive Plan process was a long process and generally speaking,
the primary interest in the Comprehensive Plan was to grow only as much as projected by the
Metropolitan Council and therefore staging on numerous properties were delayed into the
future. He stated that property was discussed specifically during the process. He stated that a
property owner can request a Comprehensive Plan amendment in connection with a
development.
Mr. Cates stated that when his family provided the free land to the City for the relocation of
Chippewa Road there was a verbal agreement that would allow his land to be available for
development purposes. He stated that they would not have provided that land for free if they
were not to get something in return.
Finke stated that throughout the 2010 Comprehensive Plan process that property was staged
for development.
2
Reid suggested that Mr. Cates and his representative speak with staff if they would like to
discuss additional options.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings
Finke reported that the Council has conducted procedural items, naming liaisons and setting
work plan priorities for the year.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update.
5. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Related to the Requirements of
the Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District
Finke stated that this agenda item arose out of the discussion in December related to the
rezoning of properties within the City for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
specifically related to the properties at 116 and Meander Road proposed for Commercial-
Highway zoning. He stated that the suggestion was made to change that zoning to
Commercial-Neighborhood. He explained that there currently are no properties zoned
Commercial-Neighborhood and therefore proposed changes to that zoning district would not
impact other existing properties. He stated that in the next agenda item, the Commission will
consider adding the two parcels at 116 and Meander to Commercial-Neighborhood. He
reviewed the proposed changes to the zoning district which would include removing auto
repair, allowing an expansion of an existing single-family home on commercial property
(which would protect the rights of the existing home on the property), and to require
additional buffer requirements in the rear yard of a Commercial-Neighborhood property
adjacent to residential development.
Nielsen asked if there is a reason this district has not been used before in Medina.
Finke replied that there has not been much new commercial development adjacent to
residential since the district was created in 2008.
Nielsen asked if there would be other areas in the City where this district may be used in the
future.
Finke replied that there could be opportunities to use this district in the future and provided
another location in the City that could be a possibility.
Williams asked if the proposed amendments would cover any potential concerns that could
arise for the other land mentioned that could be rezoned to this district in the future.
Finke confirmed that these changes would not have a negative impact on other parcels that
could potentially be rezoned into this district.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, asked what the setbacks were, side and rear, and specifically
whether there are any changes between the two districts.
3
Finke stated that the setback from residential property would be 40 feet with a buffer yard
requirement for the rear setback which requires a screen of 50 percent opacity. He stated that
the district is designed to be less intense as it is known that it will be near residential property.
He stated that if there are massive setbacks there would not be much left for development on
the site, therefore lowering the intensity in use and increasing the buffer requirement seemed
to be a better fit than requiring a larger setback without screening.
Tom Roco, 4235 Foxberry Court, stated that his property is directly adjacent to the property
in discussion. He believed that this proposal is a drastic improvement from Commercial-
Highway and would be much more appropriate as the land is adjacent to residential
development.
Finke stated that the setback from residential for Mixed-Use is 50 feet and Commercial-
Highway has a setback of 40 feet from residential.
Amic stated that it seems that this would be an improvement as the current zoning is Mixed-
Use with a 50-foot setback while the new designation would have a setback of 40 feet but
would require 50 percent opacity screening.
Finke explained that the Mixed-Use district required 40 percent opacity, therefore this is an
increased buffer requirement in return for a ten-foot reduction in the setback.
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Amic, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending
the requirements of the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district. Motion carries
unanimously.
6. Rezoning of 35 Properties in the City to Make Zoning Consistent with the City’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan
Finke stated that at the last public hearing all 35 properties were discussed, and three areas
were discussed more in depth including the proposed Commercial-Highway zoning for the
properties at 116 and Meander. He believed that has been addressed with the previous
agenda item and would now be proposed for Commercial-Neighborhood zoning. He stated
that the second area of discussion was related to the northwest corner of the City, for
properties designated for Rural Residential Urban Reserve (RRUR) until future development.
He noted that one property owner asked to remain in Rural Business Holding (RBH), which
would allow for limited business development on that property. He stated that the third
subject related to the R-4 zoning district, as there were concerns raised as to whether the
density could be achieved based on the requirement of that district. He identified the
properties in the northwest corner of the City identified for future development, and
highlighted property 29, which was interested in RBH rather than RRUR. He stated that staff
does not believe that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but there would be
concerns with which properties are allowed to have commercial development as some roads
in that area would not be conducive to business development because of road restrictions. He
stated that staff is not recommending any property to be RBH and would continue to
recommend RRUR. He moved to the southwest corner of the City and highlighted the
properties proposed to be zoned R-4 and stated that staff sketched out a plan which would
accommodate 13 to 14 units per acre on a two-acre site. He stated that the property owner
also consulted with an architect that stated that a higher density could even be achieved on
the property. He stated that staff had discussion with the property owner, who expressed an
interest in developing at a lower density than the 12-15 units per acre. He stated that staff
would recommend rezoning to that district to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He
noted that even though the density range is 12 to 15 units in the Comprehensive Plan,
4
additional flexibility of -10 percent or +20 percent could be considered in order to encourage
other objectives of the City. He stated that the City has a good deal of discretion when
rezoning properties, but it should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, noting that the
City has until May to make properties consistent in zoning with the Comprehensive Plan.
Amic asked the process of a property owner in the RRUR district if they would like to
consider a business that would be allowed under RBH.
Finke stated that a property owner could request a rezoning of the property. He stated that
the RBH district would lower the types of businesses that would be allowed because of the
limited access to water.
Galzki asked if there has been any interest from other property owners in that area related to
changing the designation.
Finke stated that he has not received any similar requests. He stated that an adjoining
property owner to parcel 29, would prefer to have RRUR.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Joe Cavanaugh provided a photograph of his property and the other four properties
considered for rezoning as well as other properties in the vicinity that have access to Highway
55. He stated that 15 years ago his property was changed to Rural Commercial. He stated
that development has slowed, and it will now be another 15 to 20 years before development
could occur. He stated that he would prefer his property to remain Rural Commercial which
would allow for some type of development to occur while the land remains in holding status.
He stated that there are buildings on his property already, one which is used for an office and
will be used for pot making, barns that are used for boat storage, and a home that is being
rented for residential use. He noted that his property does have access to Highway 55. He
stated that if they were to change the use, they would most likely add another building for
additional boat storage. He stated that the other properties that would also be included do not
have any commercial activity currently. He stated that the other photographs are across from
these properties proposed to be rezoned and have a much more intense commercial use that
he would be proposing. He noted that he would be proposing light commercial development
if they were to make changes. He explained that he is simply looking for cash flow options
until the property can be developed in the future. He confirmed that he would only be
looking to utilize the access off Highway 55.
Williams stated that there is a box marked on the picture marked 26 with multiple vehicles
and asked for details.
Finke stated that is the old Loretto towing and is not included for rezoning.
Cavanaugh stated that there is another property, the old saloon, which also has access to
Highway 55. He stated that they have a building and direct access to Highway 55 and would
just like to be able to continue to do what they are doing.
Finke stated that there is relatively recent commercial activity but noted that it has not been
reviewed by staff recently. He stated that previously there were three residential homes on
the property being used by family members.
Finke provided details on what would type of activity that would be allowed under RBH,
noting that it would be based off water usage.
5
Cavanaugh noted that there are things on his property which could be cleaned up. He stated
that the RBH zoning would allow another barn to be constructed which would allow them to
clean up other dilapidated structures on the property.
Reid asked if just the one property could be rezoned to RBH, rather than all the properties
being rezoned.
Finke stated that he has had discussions with the property owner on this subject as this
process has gone along. He stated that a solar garden or solar panels was mentioned as a
possibility and would be allowed in the RRUR district, which would also provide some
opportunities and less intensive traffic use.
Cavanaugh stated that after checking into it further, Xcel limits the amount of solar garden
activity and being that there is a large location across the street, the capacity is taken for the
area.
Reid stated that she believes the request by the Cavanaughs is reasonable.
Larry Palm stated that it appears that his property has been separated in zoning from the other
neighboring properties.
Finke stated that there are improvement homes on 32 and 34, and therefore those would be
proposed for the R-4 district as they are connected to sewer and water. He noted that 31 is
not connected to sewer and water and is vacant and therefore would be proposed for RRUR
until the staging time when it would be changed to R-4.
Palm stated that 34 is not connected to sewer and water. He stated that he paid for the sewer
and water connection to come over to the area, but it does not connect to the north currently.
He stated that his tenant moved out and the home is in such disrepair that it is no longer
habitable.
Finke stated that staff would not be opposed to a zoning of RRUR for 34 but is unsure that is
what Mr. Palm would want.
Palm stated that the City and the Metropolitan Council are now acting as developers to
determine how his property will be developed. He believes that the apartment/condo market
will bubble out in two years and his property cannot be developed until that time, which will
mean that he will continue to sit on a property that he has already sat on for ten years. He
stated that he is not asking for a change in zoning, noting that his zoning has continued to
change throughout the time he has owned the property which has limited his ability to do
anything with the property. He stated that he continues to pay taxes on a property that is not
developable. He stated that 12 to 15 units with a ten percent variable does nothing for him.
Amic asked the perfect scenario for Mr. Palm.
Palm stated that he would like a low range residential. He stated that he would not want one
single-home but would not want to be forced into an apartment complex. He stated that his
ideal use would be whatever he can market the property for. He stated that previously he
invested a lot of money in a potential senior development, which went across the street
because of problems with the City process.
6
Finke stated that he believes that the question would be more of a Comprehensive Plan
question rather than a zoning question as the zoning would need to match the density of the
Comprehensive Plan. He stated that if there were a project, the project could move forward
in 2021 and noted the process that would be necessary for approvals.
Palm stated that he is asking for the marketing opportunities to be expanded within the
residential market.
Finke stated that the minimum units per acre that he City receives credit for is eight units per
acre, but the City chose to use the higher density range during the Comprehensive Plan
process. He stated that if the density were lowered on smaller properties, two acres in size,
the density mandates of the Metropolitan Council would still be met.
Palm stated that his neighbor to the north is zoned with the same requirements but is sitting
on half an acre. He stated that eight units per acre would still be a challenge.
Piper asked if a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required to change the minimum
density of the site to eight units and whether that would impact other densities in the City.
Finke stated that these two properties could be changed to eight units per acre without
impacting other properties.
Nester asked if the Comprehensive Plan amendment process would need to start now.
Finke stated that by May, the property should be zoned consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. He stated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would take four to six months, which
is beyond this timeline.
Reid stated that she is not comfortable with what has been done to this property and asked if
staff could talk to the property owner to find a solution.
Finke stated that the City could talk with the property owner about a potential Comprehensive
Plan amendment.
Amic stated that he would recommend that the City Council consider a Comprehensive Plan
amendment in this case for properties 32 and 34.
Reid asked if the other property owner has interest in working with this property owner.
Palm replied that property owner is not interested in working with him.
Reid stated that two acres zoned for high density is a bit baffling.
Finke stated that this is not the only two-acre site zoned for high density residential.
Williams stated that she would also recommend an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
for parcels 32 and 34.
Piper asked if the Commission would want to recommend an amendment until they know
what they would recommend.
Finke stated that he can follow up with the Metropolitan Council in attempt to gain additional
input on the amendment process.
7
Reid stated that she is uncomfortable with the two issues and suggested taking action tonight
only on the Commercial-Neighborhood properties to allow further discussion on the other
two issues.
Finke stated that R-4 would be the appropriate zoning for these properties and the property or
City could initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment following that as the properties need to
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan prior to May.
Reid stated that the Commission could approve the rezonings as proposed, and those property
owners could then come forward with zoning changes or Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Piper stated that she would support the City making the recommendation for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, rather than placing that burden on the property owner.
Williams asked if parcel 29 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Finke stated that property could be left off at this time, as that would simply be a zoning
change. He noted that perhaps the Commission should consider the other four parcels for
similar zoning.
Amic stated that those property owners could have shown up. He stated that those other folks
have therefore lost their turn and, in his opinion, he would like to move on the properties that
do not have questions.
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m.
Williams stated that property 29 seems to be the only property giving the Commission pause.
Finke suggested holding 26, 27, 28, 29 and 33 back as they would all be zoned similarly. He
noted that RBH is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore a decision
would not need to be made on those properties prior to May.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend adoption of the ordinance
amending the official zoning map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, excluding properties 26, 27, 28, 29, and 33 and recommending that the
City file a Comprehensive Plan amendment for parcels 32 and 34. Motion carries
unanimously.
Finke stated that the intent would be to present the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district
and the rezoning to the City Council at the March 5th City Council meeting.
7. Public Hearing – Scott and Chantelle Theisen – 3325 County Road 24 – Conditional Use
Permit for Construction of Four Accessory Structures with an Aggregate Footprint in
Excess of 5,000 Square Feet
Finke presented a request for accessory structures at 3325 County Road 24. He reviewed the
current allocations for accessory structures on this type of property. He noted that currently
the property is vacant, and the home is proposed to be constructed at the same time as the
barn and riding structures, with plans for two additional lean-to buildings. He reviewed the
adjacent zoning and uses, noting that this site is 19 acres in size with a wetland on the
northern portion of the site. He stated that the property is proposed to be accessed with a
shared driveway with the property to the west, which was a condition of the property split.
8
He stated that for a Conditional Use Permit there are specific standards that would need to be
met including architectural measures and stormwater management measures. He reviewed
the details on how the site would meet the stormwater management requirements and
provided details on the architectural details of the site. He stated that the site has 15 grazable
acres which would allow 14 animal units, while the applicant proposes having eight horses.
He stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP subject to the conditions included in the
staff report.
Galzki asked what the lean-to buildings would be used for.
Finke replied that those would be loafing sheds for animals.
Piper referenced a property at CR 6 and Game Farm Road, noting that would be a very
similar property. She stated that this would be a great addition to the community and is
impressed with the planning for this beautiful site.
Nielsen asked if the manure removal plan of every three months would be adequate to ensure
that neighbors are not bothered by that.
Galzki stated that one of the conditions addresses that item and staff did not believe that
would be an issue because of the number of animals and location of manure storage.
Reid opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
Paul Beck, attorney representing the Wakefield Family Partnership, owner of vacant property
to the east (3235 County Road 24), stated that the Partnership recognizes that the proposed
use is allowed through a Conditional Use Permit and that the City’s discretion is limited.
However, he suggested that the Commission consider certain conditions to limit the impact of
the use upon property to the east. The potential home location on the Wakefield land is
located to the northeast of the barn and sits at a higher elevation and so will be looking down
on the large, grey-white roof. They suggest that the applicant consider a more neutral color
which fits into the surroundings. Beck also suggested landscaping to break up the mass of the
structure and noted that they were concerned with lighting coming out the windows along the
eastern facade.
Williams asked if Beck’s property has the same zoning as the subject property. Finke noted
that both were the same.
Nielsen noted Beck would only have a view of the northeast corner of the building.
Piper stated that landscaping would be one option suggested by Beck while changing the
colors would be another option.
Galzki asked if the paint is reflective.
Reid suggested that the applicant be allowed to respond.
Scott Theisen, stated that they had purchased the property from the Wakefield family and
were now surprised that they are raising concerns after the closing.
Amic asked the thoughts of the applicant on adding trees.
Theisen replied that he would prefer not to add trees or change the colors.
9
Nielsen stated that if Beck would like additional screening, the appropriate location would be
on his property as it has a higher elevation.
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m.
Piper stated that she could see requiring trees, as that could solve the problem. She stated that
as for the color of the roof perhaps there is a reason related to heat absorption.
Rollie Radtke, RAM Builders stated that all of the colors are meant to be energy efficient and
there really is not much of a difference. He noted that the colored steel is not reflective like
old galvanized steel.
Reid stated that the screening and landscaping would be addressed when the next house is
built rather than requiring that with this request.
Motion by Galzki, seconded by Piper, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Motion carries unanimously.
8. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Related to the Minimum Side Setback
Requirements of the Rural Residential-1 (RR1) Zoning District
Finke stated that this request is for a text change to the City ordinance to reduce the side
setback of the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) zoning district for parcels over five acres in size
from 50 feet to 20 feet. He stated that only three parcels in the neighborhood are over five
acres in size and therefore the other homes in that neighborhood already have a 20-foot
setback and the change would only apply to those three properties. He stated that some of the
larger properties are similar width to the smaller properties in the neighborhood, the only
difference is that the property extends further into the wetland. He stated that staff supports
this amendment as it will only apply to three properties within the neighborhood and noted
that driving through the neighborhood you would most likely not be able to identify the
properties that have five acres.
Reid opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m.
No comments made.
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m.
Galzki stated that this seems to be something that will bring the three properties into
consistency with the other properties in the neighborhood.
Motion by Nester, seconded by Piper, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending
the side setback requirement of the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District. Motion carries
unanimously.
9. Call Special Meeting – Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
Finke stated that there may be chance that more than four of the Planning Commissioners
may be present at the City Council meeting related to the open meeting law and therefore it
would make sense to call a special meeting of the Planning Commission as well. He noted
that the Hamel open house is the following night and at that meeting, the Commissioners that
10
may choose to attend would not be acting as the Commission and therefore a meeting would
not be necessary for that open house.
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Galzki, to call for a special meeting of the Planning
Commission on Tuesday, February 19th at 6:00 p.m. Motion carries unanimously.
Reid stated that she received a comment card from a resident that should have been heard
under agenda item two.
Rolland Aberg stated that he had additional comment on a matter which wasn’t on the
agenda. He urged that the Planning Commission look into regulations about exterior lighting,
including street lighting, to support darker skies. He noted that the streetlights in the Deer
Hill Preserve development glare straight out rather than being downcast. He offered to help
provide information for the City to create more dark skies compliant regulations.
Reid stated that the new structures have requirements for downward facing lighting but
acknowledged that it is not the only problem mentioned. She stated that the standards apply
to commercial buildings and parking lots and was unsure if those apply to residential
properties.
Finke stated that the power company operates the street lights and the City does not have
standards for that type of lighting.
Reid stated that residential lighting has caused light pollution in Medina.
Finke stated that the City had a process prior regarding private property lighting, where a
consultant was brought in to provide input, and the decision was made erring on the side of
private property rights and not to regulate that activity. He stated that the City made the
decision to concentrate on commercial lighting. He stated that it would be worth
investigating whether the City could work with power companies on street lights.
Amic stated that perhaps that item could be added to a future meeting that has a lighter
agenda.
Piper stated that perhaps there could be regulations on the timing of lighting on residential
properties.
Reid stated that perhaps rather than setting rules, this should be done as an informational
campaign to residents in order to try to gain compliance.
10. Approval of the January 8, 2019 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the January 8, 2019, Planning
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously.
11. Council Meeting Schedule
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Nielsen
volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission.
11
12. Adjourn
Motion by Piper, seconded by Nester, to adjourn the meeting at 9:04 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.