HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-09-2018MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
'SDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2018
7:U0 { ctrAce
Cr 7' HALL (2 7)2 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Continued Public Hearing — Open Systems International (OSI) —
PID 03-118-23-41-0005 — Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for the
construction of a 123,454 s.f. office building — north of 4101 Arrowhead
Drive
6. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of City Code
regarding Planning Commission membership requirements
7. Approval of September 11, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
8. Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
1
POSTED IN CITY HALL October S, 2018
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: September 25, 2018
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates — October 2, 2018 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) OSI Expansion — Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 — OSI has requested approval of a site
plan review, preliminary plat and rezoning to construct a 2nd building north of their existing facility.
The applicant proposes to construct the building on a separate lot and to rezone the property to
Business, in line with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing at the September 11 meeting. Staff requested that the Commission delay review of the plat
and site plan review, as the plans were being updated to address staff comments. The Planning
Commission did discuss the rezoning request, since the design of the building is contingent upon the
rezoning. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning of Lot 1 to the
Business zoning district on a 3-1 vote. One member believed the property should be zoned Business
Park. The City Council conducted a preliminary review at the September 18 meeting and directed
staff to prepare an ordinance approving the proposed rezoning. The Council tabled the plat and site
plan review so that the applicant could adjust plans.
B) Griffin CUP— 2820 County Road 24 — Bob Griffin has requested approval of a conditional
use permit to construct a 36'x 40' accessory building. A CUP is required for an accessory
building in excess of 5000 s.f. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the September
11 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. Staff intends to present the request to the City
Council at the October 2 meeting.
C) Richardson Lot Combination — PIDs 18-118-23-24-0116 and 18-118-23-24-0117 — Big Island
Land LLC (Dale Richardson) has requested a lot combination of two vacant parcels along
Ardmore Avenue, just west of County Road 19. The parcels do not meet relevant lot
standards and the applicant desires to combine them to construct a single home. The
application is currently incomplete, and staff has requested additional information. Staff will
schedule when complete for review, potentially at the November 7 City Council meeting.
D) Wayzata School Rearrangement —1152 Hamel Road — Wayzata Schools has requested a lot
line combination. The School is purchasing property north of Hamel Road, but the existing
parcel lines extend north and south of Hamel Road. The rearrangement is proposed to use
Hamel Road as the dividing line between the parcels. The City Council adopted a resolution of
approval at the September 18 meeting. The project will now be closed.
E) Ditter Concept Plan — Jim Ditter, Tom Ditter, and Differ Properties have requested review of a
concept plan related to the potential subdivision of four existing parcels totaling approximately 25
acres into six lots. Two of the existing parcels are served by City sewer and included within the
urban service area but all the property is zoned rural residential. The applicants requested that the
City consider rezoning the two parcels served by city sewer to Suburban Residential, allowing the
parcels to be reduced in size to create additional rural lots. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing at the May 8 meeting and feedback was generally supportive of what was proposed. The
Council reviewed on June 19 and raised questions whether designating the property as LDR was
consistent with the objectives of the Comp Plan. The Council directed staff to continue discussions
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 October 2, 2018
City Council Meeting
with the Ditters and staff has done so. The application will be left open in case the Ditters have
additional information to provide in the coming months.
F) Maxxon Site Plan Review — 900-920 Hamel Road — Maxxon has requested a site plan review for a
4,854 -square foot addition between the two existing buildings on their property. The applicant
proposes to convert existing bituminous to pervious surfacing because no more hardcover can be
added as a result of the Elm Creek Shoreland Overlay District. The Planning Commission reviewed
at the January 18 meeting and recommended approval. The Council granted approval on February
20. Staff will work with the applicant on conditions of approval before construction begins.
G) Johnson ADU CUP, Dykhoff Septic Variance, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery — The
City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants
with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects.
H) Woods of Medina, Hamel Haven subdivisions — These subdivisions have received final approval.
Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded
Other Projects
A) Comprehensive Plan — The Metropolitan Council has reviewed the City's 2020-2040
Comprehensive Plan update, found it to be consistent with relevant system statements and policies,
and authorized the City to put it into effect. The Met Council did not agree to allow the City to stage
the high -density residential property in the southwest corner of the City for immediate development,
so it remains staged as 2021. Staff will prepare a fmal version of the Plan for formal adoption at the
October 2 meeting.
B) Stormwater Ordinance and Design Guide —staff met with Engineering staff to discuss the scope and
workplan for reviewing the City's stormwater regulations to conform with the City's surface water
management plan and current practices. The Planning Commission and City Council held a
workshop on the regulations at the May 15 meeting. The Council adopted the ordinance at the
August 8 meeting. Staff is working on the Design Manual.
C) Mixed Residential zoning district — the City held an open house on June 12 and received feedback
on the regulations which will ultimately apply to the Mixed Residential land use. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the draft ordinance at the August 15 meeting. Feedback at the
hearing emphasized the importance of good transitions and buffering between existing low density
development and the high density portions of Mixed Residential. The Planning Commission
directed staff to make a few changes to the ordinance which were reviewed at a second public
hearing at the September 11 meeting. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance. Staff intends to present to the Council at the
October 2 meeting.
D) Upper Midwest Regional Planning Conference — Deb, Nick and I will be attending the annual
Minnesota Planning Conference (hosting the Upper Midwest Conference this year) in Rochester
9/26-9/28. Thank you for your support of continuing education for staff!
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 October 2, 2018
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
4 Tuesday September 11, 2018
5
6 1. Call to Order: Chairperson White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners Kerby Nester, Cindy Piper, Robin Reid, and Janet White.
9
10 Absent: Planning Commissioner Todd Albers, Aaron Amic, and Rashmi Williams.
11
12 Also Present: Council Member Lorie Cousineau, Planning Director Dusty Finke.
13
14 White welcomed the newest appointed member of the Commission, Cindy Piper, who will be
15 completing the term previously held by DesLauriers.
16
17 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
18
19 No comments made.
20
21 3. Update from City Council Proceedings
22
23 Cousineau stated that Medina Celebration Day will take place this Saturday from 4:00 to 8:00
24 p.m. and invited everyone to attend. She reported that recently the Council met and approved
25 the preliminary tax levy and general fund budget. She provided additional details on the
26 discussion of the parks maintenance fund, noting that the Council consensus thus far has been
27 to earmark $14,000 from the tax levy at this time with the option to contribute $30,000 into
28 the fund from the reserves in the future. She stated that the Council also considered a request
29 to eliminate the residency request for the Planning Commission, noting that the consensus of
30 the Council was to reduce the requirement from three years to two years. She stated that
31 Finke reviewed the Comprehensive Plan of Corcoran and the Council provided input on the
32 response letter drafted by staff, noting that the projected growth of that community will have
33 an impact on Medina. She noted that the Council also approved a transfer of a Development
34 Agreement from Toll Brothers to Pulte Homes.
35
36 4. Planning Department Report
37
38 Finke provided an update.
39
40 5. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of the City Code
41 Related to Regulations of the Mixed Residential Zoning District
42
43 Finke stated that the Commission held a public hearing on this topic at the August meeting, at
44 which time the ordinance was tabled and staff was directed to incorporate changes suggested
45 by the Commission. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan has now been approved by the
46 Metropolitan Council and designates certain properties at Mixed Residential, which will
47 contribute towards the minimum number of high -density units mandated by the Metropolitan
48 Council. He stated that the Mixed Residential properties are not staged for development until
49 2025, but the controls of the City must be updated within nine months following the approval
50 of the Comprehensive Plan. He identified the properties proposed to be guided as Mixed
51 Residential. He summarized the comments that were received by the public, noting that the
1
52 majority of comments were in regard to the land use designation itself and the properties
53 proposed to be guided, which are both elements of the approved Comprehensive Plan. He
54 reviewed the comments made by the Commission that have been incorporated into the
55 proposed ordinance. He recommended that the Planning Commission reopen the public
56 hearing in case there are additional comments to be received.
57
58 White reopened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.
59
60 No comments made.
61
62 White closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.
63
64 Nester stated that she is happy with the increased lot width next to adjacent existing
65 development.
66
67 Motion by Reid, seconded by Nester, to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding
68 the Mixed Residential Zoning District. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers, Antic,
69 and Williams)
70
71 6. Public Hearing — Open Systems International (OSI) — PID 03-118-23-41-0005 —
72 Rezoning to Business, Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan Review for the Construction of a
73 Two -Story Office — North of 4101 Arrowhead Drive
74
75 Finke presented a request from OSI to construct a 125,500 square foot building, to be
76 predominantly office with a smaller warehouse and training portion. He stated that this
77 action would require three land use approvals, presented in the order in which staff suggests
78 they be considered as some actions are contingent upon others — rezoning, subdivision
79 followed by the Site Plan review. He stated that staff is asking the Commission to focus on
80 the rezoning request, as changes will be made to the Site Plan and Preliminary Plat. He stated
81 that the site layout is based on the requirements of the Business District and therefore the
82 remaining actions will be contingent upon the rezoning. He identified the subject site, north
83 of the existing OSI facility, and reviewed the surrounding land uses. He stated that the
84 subject property is guided for business in the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan and was
85 previously designated for mixed use. He stated that because of the previous designation, the
86 property is zoned mixed use. He stated that mixed use zoning would be inconsistent with the
87 recently approved Comprehensive Plan and therefore absent the request from the applicant,
88 the City would need to rezone the parcel to Business or Business Park within the next nine
89 months. He reviewed similarities and differences between the different business districts. He
90 stated that the applicant is requesting the Business District for Lot 1 and did not request a
91 zoning district for the outlot. He stated that staff would recommend the Business Park
92 District for the outlot. He stated that the City has a good deal of discretion when rezoning
93 properties and either the Business or Business Park zoning would match the approved
94 Comprehensive Plan.
95
96 Piper asked the current height of the existing OSI building.
97
98 Finke stated that he did not calculate that but noted that it is a two-story building with some
99 exposed lower level, which is similar to the proposal.
100
101 Steve Oliver, representing the applicant, stated that the floor heights of building one and two
102 would be matched.
103
2
104 Finke stated that the zoning for the existing building would allow up to 45 feet for height. He
105 provided details on the Preliminary Plat, which would propose to divide the outlot into two,
106 one lot which would include the proposed building and a remaining smaller outlot to the
107 north. He reviewed the comments from Engineering which included comments on
108 transportation and utility infrastructure. He noted that the Park Commission will discuss park
109 dedication but believed that cash in lieu would be recommended as there are not plans for
110 parks in this area. He reviewed the details of the Site Plan and noted that the training area
111 would be utilized by employees already within buildings one and two. He provided
112 additional details on the proposed parking and proof of parking. He stated that the proposed
113 building design appears to meet the design standards within the proposed zoning district. He
114 stated that staff only recommends action on the rezoning as changes are still being made to
115 the applicant's plan.
116
117 Nester asked if there is a reason the entire site could not be zoned Business Park.
118
119 Finke responded that either Business or Business Park can be used to implement the Business
120 land use, depending on which the Planning Commission and Council find consistent with the
121 objectives of the land use and the purpose of the district.
122
123 White opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
124
125 Tracy Lamberty, 4250 Arrowhead Drive, stated that she owns one of the two homes that will
126 be most impacted by this project. She stated that lighting is one of her biggest concerns as
127 the lighting will be coming closer to her home. She asked if the lighting has to be on 24
128 hours per day.
129
130 Finke stated that the Code would not require 24 -hour lighting and has requirements for the
131 lighting measured at the edge of the property.
132
133 Ms. Lamberty asked that the City require high berms on the residential border to provide a
134 buffer between the use and the adjacent residential property. She asked if the training facility
135 would not have use 24 hours per day. She referenced the traffic increase on Arrowhead and
136 the high speeds of the traffic under existing conditions. She stated that the additional turn
137 lane would increase the impact of the roadway to the adjacent residential development. She
138 asked the location of the driveway for the new facility.
139
140 Mr. Oliver replied the training would be generally during business hours and that the stakes
141 on the property mark the potential access point.
142
143 Ms. Lamberty asked if there would be a requirement for a second access.
144
145 Finke replied a second access serves circulation and emergency access functions.
146
147 Ms. Lamberty asked if the building is going to sit on the hill as that would increase the
148 height.
149
150 Mr. Oliver replied that the building would be constructed into the hill to lessen the visual
151 impact.
152
153 White explained that the action tonight would simply address the rezoning and the Site Plan
154 will come forward at a future date and will include some of the more detailed information the
155 resident is looking for.
156
3
157 Keith Meuller, 4495 Bluebell Trail S, stated that he has been through other requests where the
158 enjoyment and monetary value of his property have been impacted. He stated that when you
159 purchase a home there is a lot of public information available to a buyer about the zoning,
160 which helps the buyer to make the right investment in their future. He stated that when
161 someone looks at a home in Bridgewater they drive by two signs that say proposed land
162 development, which has an impact on potential buyers. He stated that he is not sure of the
163 change to the Comprehensive Plan that designates the future use of the property as business.
164 He stated that it appears that the locomotive is already out of the gate and it would be hard to
165 slow this down. He commented that his best result would for the rezoning to not be
166 approved, even though he recognized that the change in zoning is identified in the long-range
167 plan of the City. He recognized that this request would most likely not impact the enjoyment
168 or value of his property directly but would impact the properties of the neighbors to the
169 subject property, which in turn would have an impact on the comparable values for real
170 estate. He stated that if his wish to deny the rezoning could not be granted, he would like to
171 see it minimized to the extent possible. He noted that this development will impact his
172 commute. He stated that he is empathetic with a business that would like to continue to
173 thrive and grow but noted that he purchased his business within a Business District and
174 therefore does not have to infringe on residential properties abutting the property.
175
176 Ron Ingram, an owner of OSI, stated that he hears the concerns that people are describing and
177 stated that they will do everything they can to address. He noted that the Comprehensive
178 Plan guides this property for business. He asked the residents the type of business that they
179 would like in their neighborhood and believed that his business is the right fit. He stated that
180 if it is not OSI, it is unknown to the type of business that could come in.
181
182 Mr. Mueller stated that OSI could be a good neighbor but recognized that businesses
183 sometimes change hands and then it would be unknown what would happen.
184
185 White closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.
186
187 Piper asked if the applicant could show how far into the property the new building would go.
188
189 Finke identified the proposed location of the building on the site as well as the proposed
190 parking area in relation to the property line.
191
192 Piper asked the location of the access.
193
194 Finke replied that would be on the north end of the lot and the outlot would remain north of
195 that.
196
197 Piper asked how big the outlot may be.
198
199 Finke was unsure of the exact size of the outlot following the changes, but likely would not
200 change significantly.
201
202 Reid noted that the northern outlot would remain undeveloped until a future date.
203
204 Nester commented that she believes that the entire site should be Business Park as that would
205 fit in better with the residential as it would lower the height of the building and require the
206 berming.
207
208 Finke replied that under Business Park the maximum height would be 35 while the proposed
209 height of the building is 42 feet. He stated that the way that building height is calculated, the
4
210 overall height would not need to be lowered because of the way the building will be situated
211 in the hill. He noted that the building length could be increased, or additional lower level
212 could be buried to lower the building height. He noted that there is already a 70 percent
213 requirement for opaque screening along Arrowhead.
214
215 Piper asked and received confirmation that the proposed building height would not be higher
216 than the existing building height.
217
218 White stated that it appears that the applicant is attempting to incorporate the design of the
219 existing building to ensure a cohesive look. She stated that with the original building there
220 was a lot of pressure for the applicant to create a prairie style that blends into the environment
221 and is happy to see that continuing and therefore is not concerned with the building height.
222
223 Reid asked if the parking lot lights are on 24 hours per day.
224
225 Mike Kuklok, OSI, replied that there are employees at the facility 24 hours per day and
226 therefore it is desired to have lighting in the parking lot for safety. He stated that they are
227 looking at available technologies and would use downcast lighting. He stated that the newer
228 LED lighting allows the light fixtures to be lowered.
229
230 White reviewed the staff memorandum, noting that the site has been guided for Business
231 under the approved Comprehensive Plan. She felt that due to the proximity of Arrowhead
232 Drive, it would be appropriate to have the zoning be Business based on the objectives
233 outlined. She commented that the outlot could be zoned for Business Park.
234
235 Nester stated that it will be business either way, the decision will be whether it is Business or
236 Business Park. She believed that Business Park would be preferable because of the proximity
237 to residential property and Business Park would provided better opportunities for buffering
238 and screening.
239
240 Finke stated that the buffering requirement is the same for both districts.
241
242 Nester noted that the main difference would be the height difference of ten feet.
243
244 Reid commented that would result in a larger building footprint. She noted that a future
245 building to come on the outlot would need to be a lower height. She commented that OSI has
246 been a great addition to Medina and has been a great business, therefore she is inclined to
247 support the Business District. She stated that it would help the applicant to consider lighting,
248 berming, and screening when refming the Site Plan to be a good neighbor to the residential
249 properties. She also agreed that the outlot should be Business Park, as that would provide
250 transition.
251
252 Piper asked the number of additional employees.
253
254 Mr. Ingram confirmed that there would be additional employees hired, noting that it would be
255 mostly engineers and professionals. He estimated that perhaps 100 additional employees
256 would be hired in the beginning and over the next few years more staff would be hired. He
257 estimated that the building would be filled within five years and at that time OSI would look
258 at the outlot.
259
260 Finke stated that the proposal is the same comparative height as the existing building, but
261 because more of the top level is exposed that impacts overall height calculation.
262
5
263 Mr. Oliver stated that one of the reasons the site is what is it is, is because the site has a fall of
264 about 20 feet. He stated that they are taking advantage of the natural fall rather than
265 attempting to bury the site against the wetland. He stated that from the south and north the
266 site will read as a two-story building.
267
268 Finke stated that the outlot is not included as part of the request from the applicant and
269 therefore the City would need to rezone the outlot in the future.
270
271 Motion by Reid, seconded by Piper, to recommend approval of the rezoning of Lot 1, Block
272 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park to the Business Zoning District. Motion carries 3-1
273 (Nester opposed). (Absent: Albers, Antic, and Williams)
274
275 Nester noted that she is opposed because she believes that Business Park would be a better
276 zoning.
277
278 Nester noted that she believes the parcel should be zoned Business Park.
279
280 White noted that the Plat and Site Plan review would be considered at a future meeting.
281
282 Nester noted that there are trails marked future and she would like to see those included
283 because of the higher number of pedestrians in the area.
284
285 White asked that the applicant considers the public comments and noted that any
286 improvements to lighting and landscaping and berming would be appreciated.
287
288 Motion by Piper, seconded by Reid, to table consideration of the Preliminary Plat and Site
289 Plan review to allow the applicant to update plans. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent:
290 Albers, Arnie, and Williams)
291
292 Finke stated that the City Council is scheduled to review the rezoning request at their meeting
293 next Tuesday and the remainder of the requests will be brought back to the Planning
294 Commission at the next meeting.
295
296 7. Public Hearing — Robert Griffin — 2820 Co Rd 24 — Conditional Use Permit to Exceed
297 5,000 Square Feet of Accessory Building on One Lot
298
299 Finke presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which will replace a
300 previously existing accessory building on the property, noting that the previous building was
301 recently demolished. He explained that the zoning district requires a CUP for over 5,000
302 square feet of accessory buildings. He stated that the property is 27 acres in size and the
303 proposed location from the accessory building is not visible from the roadway. He noted that
304 the closest neighboring property is also owned by the applicant. He reviewed the proposed
305 design elements and stated that the tree removal proposed is within the removal allowed by
306 City Code. He noted that a stormwater BMP would be required and advised that the
307 applicant would propose a reduction in hardcover elsewhere on the site. He provided
308 additional information on the BMP triggers and noted that the general regulations would not
309 trigger a BMP but because this is a conditional use, the BMP is required. He stated that staff
310 believes that the criteria for a CUP are met through this request.
311
312 Nester asked for clarification on BMPs.
313
314 Finke clarified that a permanent BMP would be required.
315
6
316 White opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m.
317
318 Robert Griffin, 2820 Co Rd 24, stated that this is replacement of a 35 -year -old shed next to
319 the barn. He stated that because the barn is large, any shed will place them over the 5,000
320 square feet. He stated that because the site is well under the overall hardcover requirement
321 for the site, he believes it to be onerous to remove existing hardcover to offset this but noted
322 that they are willing to do that. He stated that the shed will help to store equipment and
323 protect the animals.
324
325 White stated that she would assume that the applicant is familiar with BMPs because of the
326 horse ownership.
327
328 Mr. Griffin confirmed that they are very aware and familiar with BMP's, noting that they do
329 not just own 27 acres but a total of almost 80 acres.
330
331 Reid stated that she believes these parcels to be two of the most beautiful in Medina and did
332 not have any problems with the request.
333
334 Nester stated that there also seems to be support from the neighbors.
335
336 Piper noted that she actually lived in the barn for six months in 1994 and therefore knows the
337 property well and knows how bad the shed was.
338
339 Finke submitted a written comment received by Matt Hoffman, 2622 Co Rd 24, in general
340 support of the project.
341
342 White closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
343
344 Motion by Piper, seconded by Reid, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit
345 subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent:
346 Albers, Amic, and Williams)
347
348 Finke stated that this will be considered by the City Council at the October 2, 2018 meeting.
349
350 8. Approval of the August 8, 2018 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
351
352 Motion by Nester, seconded by Reid, to approve the August 8, 2018, Planning Commission
353 minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers, Amic, and Williams)
354
355 9. Council Meeting Schedule
356
357 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Reid volunteered
358 to attend in representation of the Commission.
359
360 10. Adjourn
361
362 Motion by Piper, seconded by Nester, to adjourn the meeting at 8:21 p.m. Motion carried
363 unanimously.
7
AGENDA ITEM: 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: October 3, 2018
MEETING: October 9, 2018 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment —
Planning Commission Residency Requirement
Background
Section 825.33 of the City Code establishes the Planning Commission to serve the role of City's
"planning agency" as described in statute.
The code requires members to have lived in the City for three years to be appointed: "Members of
the planning commission shall be persons who have resided in the city for at least three years
immediately preceding appointment."
In August, when a vacancy occurred on the Planning Commission, a resident who has not
resided in the City for three years applied to serve on the Commission and requested that the City
Council consider reduce or waive the residency requirement. The resident noted that the
residency requirement to file as a candidate for City Council is only 30 days.
The City Council discussed the residency requirement and the consensus was to reduce the
requirement from three years. An excerpt from the Council's discussion is attached for
reference.
Council members discussed one-year or two-year requirement, and ultimately directed staff to
prepare an amendment to the code which would reduce the residency requirement to two -years.
An ordinance to this effect is attached.
Potential Action
A public hearing is required for amendments to the City's zoning ordinance, in which the
Planning Commission regulations are located.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and then discuss the
appropriate residency requirement to serve on the Commission. If the Planning Commission
agrees to reducing to two -years, the following action would be appropriate:
Move to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding planning commission
membership requirements.
Attachments
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Excerpt from 9/4/2018 City Council meeting
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 1 October 9, 2018
Planning Commission Residency Requirement Planning Commission Meeting
I
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 825.33 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by
deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 825.33. Planning Commission.
Subd. 1. Establishment. A planning commission of seven members is established and shall
constitute the planning agency of the city. Members of the planning commission shall be
persons who have resided in the city for at least three two years immediately preceding
appointment. Members shall be appointed by the city council, shall serve staggered terms of
three years and may be removed by a vote of two-thirds of the full city council. Terms shall
begin January 1. No person shall serve more than nine consecutive years on the planning
commission. Any person who has served nine consecutive years may be appointed again
after an interruption in service of at least one year.
Subd. 2. Powers and Duties. The planning commission shall have such powers and duties as
may be conferred upon it by statute or ordinance. All of the planning commission's actions
shall be advisory to the city council.
Subd. 3. Organization. The planning commission may elect from among its members such
officers as it may deem appropriate. The planning commission may adopt bylaws or
operational procedures for the conduct of its business. The bylaws or operational
procedures may pertain to such matters as the planning commission deems appropriate but
shall not be in conflict with any ordinance or statute.
Subd. 4. Staff Liaison. The zoning administrator or such other person as may be designated
by the city administrator shall serve as staff liaison to the planning commission. The staff
liaison shall prepare reports and information for the planning commission, and may attend
its meetings and participate in hearings and discussions held by the commission but shall not
vote on any item before the planning commission.
Subd. 5. Recommendations. The planning commission shall make recommendations to the
city council on items before it within a reasonable time or such time as is prescribed by
statute or ordinance. Failure by the planning commission to make a recommendation within
the required period shall be deemed to be a denial unless the delay is agreed to by the
applicant. The planning commission may condition its recommendations in order to effect
Ordinance No. lk 1
DATE
the intent of the land use controls of the city. The planning commission shall accompany
any recommendation of denial of an application with a statement of its findings regarding
the matter.
Subd. 6. Council Action. The city council may adopt, modify or reject the recommendations
of the planning commission by vote of a simple majority of those present, unless otherwise
required by statute or ordinance.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this _ day of , 2018.
Attest:
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the day of , 2018.
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
Medina City Council Excerpt from 9/4/2018 Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission Ordinance — Discuss Request for Reduction/Elimination of Three
Year Residency Requirement (7:31 p.m.)
Johnson noted that the City received a request from resident Timothy Sedabres to eliminate or
reduce the three-year residency requirement for the Planning Commission. He noted that this
would be a policy discussion and decision for the City Council.
Martin stated that it would make sense to have some residency requirement as it takes time to
get to know your community.
Anderson agreed but asked if that length of time would be three years or whether that could be
less.
Cousineau stated that three years seems a bit restrictive and suggested at least a one year
minimum. She stated that she would be comfortable with a one year minimum for the Park and
Planning Commissions.
Pederson agreed that three years seems a long time and that it would be helpful to have input
from new residents. He agreed that one to two years would be appropriate, noting that he
would support two years.
DesLauriers echoed the comments of Pederson. He stated that he would support one year for
the Park Commission and two years for the Planning Commission.
The consensus of the Council was to direct staff to prepare an ordinance requiring a one-year
minimum residency requirement for the Park Commission and two-year minimum residency
requirement for the Planning Commission.
Bob Franklin, 2819 Lakeshore, stated that in the past the residency requirement was five years.
He explained that it takes time for new residents to gain the knowledge of what is great in the
community.
Johnson noted that the Park Commission already has a one-year residency requirement and
therefore staff will prepare the ordinance changing the minimum residency requirement for the
Planning Commission from three years to two years.
1
AGENDA ITEM: 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: October 4, 2018
MEETING: October 9, 2018 Planning Commission
SUBJ: OSI — Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review — PID 03-118-23-41-0005
(west of Arrowhead Dr., north of Meander Rd.)
Background
Open Systems International, Inc. (OSI) has requested approval of various land use applications
to allow for construction of a second building on a separate lot north of their existing facility at
4101 Arrowhead Drive. The proposed structure is approximately 123,500 gross square feet and
is predominantly office, except approximately 20,000 s.f. of warehouse and 10,000 s.f.
training/meeting/assembly.
The subject site is a vacant 28.5 acre outlot, west of Arrowhead Drive and north of Meander
Road. The applicant proposes to subdivide the outlot into a 17.2 acre parcel to contain the new
building, with the remaining 10.45 acres being platted into an outlot.
The parcel is zoned Mixed Use, but the future land use of the property has been changed under
the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan to Business. The applicant proposes to rezone the lot for the
new structure to the Business (B) zoning district.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal at the September 11 meeting.
The minutes from that meeting are separate within the packet for approval. Speakers at the
hearing urged the Commission to require substantial berming, screening, and means to reduce
light intrusion. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning to the
Business district (on a 3-1 vote) and tabled the preliminary plat and site plan review so that the
applicant could update plans.
The subject property is currently farmed and includes a large wetland to the west and three
smaller wetlands. There are trees located along the wetland edge and a grove of boxelder trees in
the east -central of the site. An aerial of the site can be found on the following page.
The request includes the following land use applications, and staff recommends that they be
considered in this order:
1) Rezoning of proposed Lot 1, Block 1 from Mixed Use to Business (B).
2) Preliminary Plat for subdivision of Outlot A into a lot and an outlot.
3) Site Plan review for construction of new building.
OSI Page 1 of 11 October 9, 2018
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Comprehensive Plan/Rezoning Request
As previously noted, the subject site has been designated as "Business" in the City's 2020-2040
Comprehensive Plan. Previously, the site was identified as "Mixed Use" which is why the
property is zoned Mixed Use.
Within the following nine months, the City will need to rezone various properties, including this
subject site, which have been changed within the Comprehensive Plan update. The City has
established the Business (B) and Business Park (BP) zoning districts to implement the objectives
of the Business land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has requested that the lot for
the new building be zoned B.
The B and BP districts allow similar uses, but as described in their purpose statements, generally
the B district is intended to be applied to property more proximate to arterial roadways and the
BP zoning district is intended to be applied to property more proximate to residential lands.
OSI Page 2 of 11 October 9, 2018
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The most significant difference between the BP and B zoning districts is that the B district allows
a height of 45 feet, and the BP district allows 35 feet. The setback requirements are slightly
more for BP and very limited outside storage is permitted in B while no outside storage is
permitted in BP.
According to Section 825.35 of the City Code: "amendments [to the zoning map] shall
not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals
and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City."
Following the public hearing at the September meeting, the Planning Commission recommended
approval (on a 3-1 vote) of the proposed zoning of Lot 1 to Business. The City Council also
reviewed and directed staff to prepare an ordinance rezoning Lot 1 to Business at their
September 18 meeting. As noted previously, staff recommends that the northern outlot be zoned
Business Park.
Preliminary Plat
The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing outlot into a 17.2 acre lot to contain the
proposed building and a smaller outlot to the north, which would be again replatted in the future.
As noted above, staff recommends that the Outlot be zoned Business Park and Lot 1 be zoned
Business. Lot 1 appears to meet the dimensional standards of either district. The Outlot also
appears to meet the dimensional standards, although it would need to be replatted before any
development could occur on the site. The property is currently zoned Mixed Use, and the lot and
outlot are so large that they would also meet the dimensional standards of this district even if the
City did not approve the rezoning. The following table compares Lot 1 to the B district
standards and the Outlot to the BP standards:
B Requirement
Lot 1
BP Requirement
Outlot A
Minimum Lot Area
3 acres
17.2 acre
3 acres
10.45 acre
Minimum Lot Width
175 feet
880 feet
200 feet
740 feet
Minimum Lot Depth
175 feet
1020 feet
200 feet
820 feet
Transportation, Streets and Right-of-way
The applicant proposes a new access point on the north of Lot 1 to serve the new building. The
intent is for this access to also serve future development on the outlot to the north. The applicant
also proposes to connect the parking lot of the proposed building to the parking lot of the
existing building to the south. Staff recommends a condition that cross -easements be provided
for access between the parcels.
The City Engineer has conducted a traffic analysis to determine what improvements are
necessary in connection with the new access and traffic generated on the lot. A summary of the
analysis is attached for reference. The City Engineer recommends that the City require a petition
and waiver for potential future improvements at the new access point.
The City Engineer also recommends additional right-of-way be required along Arrowhead Drive
and future Chippewa Road. This right-of-way is shown on the plat.
OSI Page 3 of 11 October 9, 2018
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Sewer/Water/Easements
The applicant proposes to loop a watermain from Arrowhead Drive and connect with a stub
northeast of the existing OSI building. The applicant also proposes to stub a watermain to the
north.
The applicant proposes to connect its sewer service to an existing stub along Arrowhead Drive.
This service will be privately maintained.
Staff recommends a condition that easements be provided around the perimeter of the lot, over
all wetland areas, and over all public and private watermains and hydrants.
Park Dedication
The Park Commission reviewed the request at their September 19 meeting. The Commission
recommended that the City obtain a trail easement along the northern property line, adjacent to
future Chippewa Road. This easement would account for approximately 5.6% of the required
park dedication. The Commission recommended that a cash -in -lieu fee of $161,386.24 be
required rather than additional land dedication.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
The following criteria are described in the subdivision ordinance: "In the case of all subdivisions,
the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the
following findings are made:
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city,
or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are
such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does
not meet minimum lot size standards.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or
private streets, easements or right-of-way.
The City's has a relatively low amount of discretion with regard to reviewing subdivisions. If
the subdivision meets relevant ordinance standards and does not meet the criteria above, it
should be approved. Subject to the following conditions, staff does not believe these findings are
met. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include
the conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy.
2. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated September 21, 2018
except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
3. The Applicant shall dedicate a trail easement 10 -feet in width adjacent to the northern
property line and pay cash -in -lieu of additional land dedication in an amount of $161,386.24.
OSI Page 4 of 11
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
October 9, 2018
4. The Applicant shall enter into a petition and waiver agreement regarding future turn lane
construction to serve the proposed access for the Property.
5. The plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of Lot 1, over all
water mains and hydrants, and over all wetland areas.
6. The Applicant shall submit documents for review and approval by the City which will be
recorded against the Property and the adjacent properties related to cross -access.
7. The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site
improvements in order to ensure completion.
8. The final plat applicant shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the city council
resolution granting preliminary approval or the approval shall be considered void, unless a
written request for time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City
Council.
9. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the
cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents.
Proposed Site Plan
The proposed structure is approximately 123,500 gross square feet and is predominantly office,
except approximately 20,000 s.f. of warehouse and 10,000 s.f. training/meeting/assembly. All of
these uses are permitted in the B zoning district.
Following is a summary comparing the proposed construction to the dimensional standards of
the B district. This review is contingent upon rezoning to the B zoning district and would need
to be reevaluated if the City does not approve of the requested rezoning.
B District Requirement
Proposed
Minimum Front Yard Setback
40 feet
242 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback (west)
25 feet
490 feet
Minimum Interior Yard Setback
25 feet
(15 feet if integrated)
27 feet (south)
348 feet (north)
Setback from Minor Collector
(Arrowhead Drive)
40 feet
242 feet
Setback from Residential (east)
100 feet
(75 feet w/ screening)
292 feet
(including 1/2 ROW)
27 feet (south)
Setback for Structures >35 feet
+ foot per foot (22.5 feet)
Minimum Parking Setbacks
Front Yard
25 feet
27 feet
Rear and Side Yard
15 feet
15 ft (N); 24 ft (S)
Residential (east)
100 feet
(60 feet w/ screening)
75 feet
(including 1/2 ROW)
Maximum Hardcover
70%
Building Height
45 feet
42.5 feet
The minimum parking setback from residential property is 100 feet. Property east of Arrowhead
Drive is guided for residential development. The B zoning district permits a reduction of the
residential setback to 60 feet if landscape screening with an opacity of 70% is provided. The
proposed parking is setback 25 feet from the front property line. Staff believes it is reasonable to
measure the residential setback from the centerline of Arrowhead Drive rather than the front
OSI Page 5 of 11
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review
October 9, 2018
Planning Commission Meeting
property line. With the 50 -feet of right-of-way, the parking would be setback 75 feet from the
centerline. A landscaping screen with an opacity of 70% is required for parking in this location.
Staff recommends a condition requiring additional plantings to achieve 70% opacity.
Building Materials and Design
The B and BP zoning district require the following architectural standards. The Planning
Commission and Council can discuss whether the proposed building is consistent with the
standards or recommend conditions if not.
Materials
The business district requires: "All exterior building materials shall be durable and meet the
following standards:
(a) A minimum of 20 percent of the building exterior shall be brick, natural stone, stucco
(not Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product), copper, or glass.
(b) A maximum of 80 percent may be decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative
block, and/or decorative pre -cast concrete panels. Decorative concrete shall be color
impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a
high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
(c) A maximum of 20 percent may be wood, metal (excluding copper), fiber cement lap
siding or Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, if used as accent
materials which are integrated into the overall building design."
The applicant proposes brick as the main material (35.8%) with 26.4% of the facade to include
glass (total 62.2%). Precast concrete panels are proposed for 30.8% of the facade and 6.3%
metal as an accent. Staff recommends a condition that the concrete panels are "color
impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high quality
terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance."
Modulation
The business districts require: "Buildings shall be designed to avoid long, monotonous
building walls. Modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or
building materials/design. Generally, a particular building elevation shall include a
minimum of one element of modulation per 100 feet of horizontal length, or portion
thereof. Alternative architectural or site elements and designs may also be approved by
the city which achieve the purpose of reducing the visual impact of long building walls."
The proposed building elevations contain many aspects of modulation, including horizontal
(varying building setback), different materials, and elements such as awnings.
Fenestration and Transparency
The business districts require: "Building elevations which face a public street shall include
generous window coverage. Alternative architectural elements may be approved by the City
when windows are not practical."
The east and north elevations face streets and contain 25.4% and 14.5% window coverage
respectively. The elevations also include awnings and horizontal building modulation.
OSI Page 6 of 11 October 9, 2018
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Multi -sided Architecture
The business districts require: "Any rear or side building elevation which faces a
public street or a residential zoning district shall include design and architectural
elements of a quality generally associated with a front facade. The elevation(s) shall be
compatible with the front building elevation."
The east and north facades face streets, while west and south face businesses. Nonetheless, staff
believes that the proposed building provides multi -sided architecture.
Stormwater
The applicant proposes a filtration basin and stormwater pond (with filtration bench) for
stormwater management. The City Engineer has reviewed and provided comments to address
which staff recommends as a condition of approval.
The project will also be subject to Elm Creek Watershed review and approval.
Wetlands and Floodplains
There are three wetlands on Lot 1, including a large DNR wetland to the west and two small
wetlands in the southeast and southwest corner of the site. The applicant proposes no wetland
impacts.
The City's wetland protection ordinance requires upland buffers with an average width of 35 feet
adjacent to the large wetland to the west. This buffer is not annotated on the plans, but the area
is not proposed to be disturbed so can be accommodated.
The wetland protection ordinance requires a buffer with an average width of 20 feet adjacent to
the small wetlands. The width of these buffers may be averaged, with a minimum width of 15
feet. The plans appear to meet these minimum width requirements. There is a substantial
amount of grading within the buffer adjacent to the southeast wetland to construct a filtration
basin. Stormwater facilities are permitted within the buffer, provided "proposed alterations
which are determined to be consistent with the vegetative standards and purposes of this
section." The applicant will need to update proposed planting plans to provide appropriate
vegetation.
Transportation/Access/Loading
Transportation and access are discussed above within the review of the preliminary plat.
The business zoning districts include the following requirements related to loading docks:
• Limitation on loading dock area located outside of courtyards - Loading docks,
excepting those located within a courtyard as defined by this Section, shall not occupy
greater than 10 percent of the building perimeter.
The proposed docks occupy 4.3% of the perimeter of the structure.
• Loading docks shall not be located in required yard setbacks and should be located in a
way which minimizes visibility from residential zoning districts and public streets.
The proposed docks are located on the far side of the structure, partially under grade. The
applicant has updated plans to integrate landscaping screening as well.
OSI Page 7 of 11 October 9, 2018
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
" T h e l o a d i n g d o c k s e t b a c k a d j a c e n t t o o r a c r o s s a s t r e e t f r o m a r e s i d e n t i a l z o n i n g d i s t r i c t
s h a l l b e i n c r e a s e d t o 1 0 0 f e e t .
T h e p r o p o s e d d o c k s a r e s e t b a c k 5 0 0 f e e t .
" A n y l o a d i n g d o c k w i t h i n 3 0 0 f e e t o f a r e s i d e n t i a l z o n i n g d i s t r i c t s h a l l b e s e p a r a t e d f r o m
t h e r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t b y a b u i l d i n g o r a w i n g w a l l . T h e c i t y m a y a p p r o v e o f o t h e r
a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r n o i s e a b a t e m e n t a n d s c r e e n i n g .
T h e p r o p o s e d d o c k s a r e s e t b a c k 5 0 0 f e e t a n d a r e s e t p a r t i a l l y u n d e r g r a d e .
" L o a d i n g d o c k s s h a l l b e s c r e e n e d f r o m a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y a n d s t r e e t s t o t h e f u l l e s t e x t e n t
p o s s i b l e u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g t e c h n i q u e s , o r o t h e r s a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e c i t y .
o B u i l d i n g d e s i g n / c o n f i g u r a t i o n
o W i n g w a l l s
o B e l o w g r a d e d o c k s . T h i s t e c h n i q u e s h a l l b e s u p p l e m e n t e d w i t h l a n d s c a p i n g .
o L a n d s c a p i n g
o B e r m i n g
o D e c o r a t i v e F e n c i n g .
T h e p r o p o s e d d o c k s a r e b e l o w g r a d e a n d s e t o n t h e f a r s i d e o f t h e b u i l d i n g a n d i n c l u d e s
l a n d s c a p i n g f o r a d d i t i o n a l s c r e e n i n g .
P a r k i n g
T h e a p p l i c a n t p r o p o s e s 4 2 8 p a r k i n g s p a c e s , l o c a t e d n o r t h a n d e a s t o f t h e p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g . T h e
a p p l i c a n t h a s c a l c u l a t e d i t s n e e d a s 3 7 7 p a r k i n g s p a c e s u p o n f u l l b u i l d - o u t .
T h e C i t y '