HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-13-2010MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010
Immediately Following Adjournment of
7:00 p.m. Concurrent Meeting
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Hearing — Open Systems International (OSI) — Northwest
corner of Arrowhead Drive and State Highway 55 (PID 03-118-23-
44-0001) — Amendment of previously approved Conditional Use
Permit and Site Plan Review to increase the building size from 92,000
square feet to 100,400 square feet.
3. Planning Department Report
4. Approval of March 9, 2010 Planning Commission minutes
5. Approval of March 16, 2010 minutes from concurrent meeting with
the City Council
6. Discussion — Rescheduling of August 10`h meeting date
7. City Council Meeting Schedule
8. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL April 1, 2010
Updated April 8, 2010
{
AGENDA ITEM: 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: April 7, 2010
MEETING: April 13, 2010 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Open Systems International (OSI) — Northwest corner of Highway 55 and
Arrowhead Dr. (PID 03-118-23-44-0001) — Amended Site Plan and CUP
Background
On March 16, 2010 the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-21, which granted approval of a
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit to OSI to construct a 92,000 square foot building
and other site improvements.
The applicant received very competitive construction bids for the building which was approved
by the City. As a result, the applicant is interested in constructing additional square footage at
this time, an addition that they had originally planned to make at some time in the future.
Summary of Request — Changes from Approved Plan
The proposed amendment is to add 8,400 square feet of floor area to the building. The additional
proposed square footage is highlighted with a bubble on the attached plans and is located as
follows:
■ 4,800 square foot expansion of the warehouse to the east — (expands original building
footprint 40 -feet further to the east).
• 3,600 square foot expansion of the second -floor office space — (expands the 2nd floor
40 -feet further to the east; still located within original building footprint).
In order to accommodate the expanded building footprint, the landscaped area east of the
building was reduced:
• Landscaping adjacent to building was reduced from 40 feet to 16 feet in width.
■ Landscaping area within the parking lot east of the expansion was also reduced from
26 feet to 10 feet in width.
• Five trees removed from landscaping plan adjacent to the east of the building.
The applicant has also altered the proposed building material of the eastern facing wall to be
primarily brick instead of concrete. This is a result of comments during the Planning
Commission and City Council reviews.
The other major change in the proposed site plan is that the applicant is considering purchasing
wetland credits instead of creating wetland along the northwest corner of the building. This
reduces the amount of grading that will be necessary in this area. Purchasing credits rather than
mitigating on -site was actually suggested by the City's wetland consultant because there were
not locations with a higher restoration potential. Any on -site mitigation would have been
human -created wetlands (rather than the preferred restoration of historical wetlands), and the
Open Systems International Page 1 of 2
Amendment to approved Site Plan and CUP Planning Commission Meeting
April 13, 2010
location that the applicant originally selected for mitigation would require altering a nice, natural
slope that exists today.
Except for the changes above, the proposed site plans are the same as those approved by the City
Council on March 16.
Analysis and Ordinance Compliance
Overall, staff believes that the addition of 8,400 square feet of floor area is a relatively minor
change, especially since the building footprint is only proposed to be 4,800 square feet larger.
While the additional building footprint caused a reduction of landscaping area and trees proposed
to the east of the building, the area of landscaping in this area and overall number of proposed
trees still meet the requirements of the Commercial -Highway (CH) district.
Adding brick in addition to the concrete on the eastern facade of the warehouse helped reduce
the monotonous appearance of this stretch of the building.
The north building facade met the minimum modulation requirements as previously approved.
The CH ordinance requires one element of modulation per 40 feet. With the additional length of
building, staff recommends that an additional architectural detail be added to the warehouse
portion of the northern facade. In fact, it actually appears that the updated plan includes fewer
windows on the northern warehouse wall. Additionally, the City Council had required on the
approved resolution that the landscaping plan be updated to include more trees to break up the
massing of this northern building facade. Staff believes this is still very important in addition to
the modulation of the building.
As mentioned above, the City's wetland consultant suggested that the applicant investigate
wetland credits rather than on -site mitigation.
The updated plans identify the northern fire lane as gravel. The City Engineer has expressed
concern about sediment because this area is over 5% sloped and designed with curb and gutter
which may quickly cause sediment to build up in the filtration basin where the area drains.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution which makes the following minor changes
to Resolution 2010-21:
• References the updated plans (which includes the additional 8,400 square feet) rather
than the "old" plans
• Requires additional building modulation on the northwest corner of the building
• Requires the northern fire lane to be paved
Otherwise, the terms and conditions of Resolution 2010-21 will remain in effect.
Attachments
1. Resolution 2010-21 (approved by City Council on 3/16/2010)
2. Draft resolution
3. Plans received by the City on 3/30/2010
Open Systems International Page 2 of 2 April 13, 2010
Amendment to approved Site Plan and CUP Planning Commission Meeting
f
ATTACHMENT 1 Approved Resolution
Member Siitari introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-21
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPEN SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING AT
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CAVANAUGH'S MEADOWWOODS PARK
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Wilfred Cavanaugh is the owner of certain property located at the
northwest corner of Highway 55 and Arrowhead Drive which is legally described as Lot 1,
Block 1, Cavanaugh's Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Open Systems International, Inc. (the "Applicant") have the option to
purchase the Property and has requested approval from the City of a Site Plan Review and a
Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 92,000 square foot building and accompanying
site improvements on the Property; and _
WHEREAS, the planning commission held a duly called public hearing on February 9,
2010, where testimony was heard from the Applicant, Owner, city staff, and other interested
parties; and
WHEREAS, the planning commission recommended approval of the site plan review
and conditional use permit, subject to certain terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2010, the city council reviewed the site plan and conditional
use permit for conformance with City ordinances, considered the recommendations of the
planning commission and heard comments from interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA, that the site plan review and conditional use permit be
approved, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1) This approval shall be contingent on recording of the plat of Cavanaugh's Meadowwoods
Park and the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1 to the Commercial -Highway district.
2) The building shall not be occupied prior to January 1, 2011.
3) Except as modified herein, construction shall be consistent with the plans received by the
Resolution No. 2010-21
March 16, 2010
City on February 2, 2010 and the landscaping plans received February 25, 2010.
4) The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City which shall be
recorded against the property.
5) Landscaping and lighting plans shall be updated to accurately reflect property boundaries.
6) Except as modified herein, the Applicant shall abide by the recommendations of the City
Engineer dated February 2, 2010.
7) Except as modified herein, the Applicant shall abide by the recommendations of the City
Fire Marshal dated February 2, 2010.
8) Fire lane locations shall be updated so that no portion of the building exceed 400 feet in
distance from afire lane.
9) The Applicant shall execute and record easements and agreements as approved by City
staff related to the proposed driveway and stormwater improvements on Lot 1, Block 1
which benefit Outlot C. The agreement shall include maintenance provisions.
10) The western 5.5 acres of Lot 1, Block 1 shall be excluded from the actual lot area when
calculating hardcover/green space requirements because this area has been identified as
additional open space and has been subtracted from the buildable acres of the lot for the
purposes of park dedication.
11) The Applicant shall maintain the western 5.5 acres of Lot 1, Block 1 as open space and
execute and record documentation approved by City staff to describe this area. Use of
this open space shall be limited to soft trails and open picnic areas. Construction of any
structure in this open space area shall be reviewed by the City Council to determine if
such construction is consistent with the maintenance of the area as open space.
12) Additional Park Dedication in the amount of 16,117 square feet of buildable land or, at
this City's discretion, the cash -in -lieu equivalent shall be required from the owner of
Lot 1, Block 1 if:
(a) The owner of Lot 1, Block 1 no longer maintains the western 5.5 acres as open
space as described in condition 11 above; or
(b) The owner of Lot 1, Block 1 no longer excludes the western 5.5 acres from the
actual lot area of the lot when calculating hardcover/green space requirements.
13) The Applicant shall submit a wetland replacement plan, including maintenance and
monitoring plans, for review and approval by the City wetland agent and relevant
agencies. The Applicant shall abide by conditions of the approved replacement plan.
14) The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of the City wetland protection ordinance
and install upland buffers adjacent to wetlands. The Applicant shall execute and record
easements describing the location of these buffers as provided by staff and also install
signage at the edge of the buffers. Buffer vegetation shall be installed, maintained, and
inspected as required by the City Code.
15) The Applicant shall install site improvements, as approved by the City Engineer, which
Resolution No. 2010-21 2
March 16, 2010
address stormwater quality and quantity as required by the City Surface Water
Management Plan for sites with similar soil conditions.
16) The landscaping plan shall be updated so that proposed plantings to the north and
northeast of the structure are situated in a way and are large enough to break up the
appearance of the building from adjacent property,
17) The landscaping plan shall be designed so that fire lanes are clear of potential
interference by trees and plants when the plantings mature.
18) No landscape irrigation system is proposed at this time. Any system shall be required to
abide by City water usage regulations. Current regulations do not permit an irrigation
system to be conneted to the City water system. City water may be utilized for temporary
irrigation of new plantings to support establishment.
19) It is acknowledged that the property immediately to the north is guided Mixed Use,
which allows for either residential or commercial development in the future. If the
adjacent use to the north is residential upon development, the Applicant shall provide
screening, consistent with City regulations, to the north of the loading dock area.
20) Outdoor storage shall be limited to seven service vehicles which shall be no more than
either 24 feet in length or 12,000 lbs. of gross vehicle weight. Additional vehicles and
larger vehicles may be stored in the loading dock area. No other outdoor storage shall be
permitted.
21) The enclosures for the mechanical equipment and trash storage shall be constructed with
materials compatible with the building.
22) Parking stalls may be reduced to 19 feet in depth in order to reduce the amount of
hardcover within the parking lot. Additionally, parking lot aisles may be reduced to 22
feet, except those which are part of the fire lane.
23) The Applicant shall obtain necessary permits from the City, Elm Creek Watershed,
Hennepin County, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and any other relevant agency prior to commencing construction activity on the
property.
24) Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.
25) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the site plan and conditional review and other relevant documents.
Resolution No. 2010-21 3
March 16, 2010
Dated: March 16, 2010
ATTEST:
Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk
Carolyn ` Smith, Acting Mayor
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Weir
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Siitari, Weir, Smith
And the following voted against same: (Absent: Crosby, Johnson)
None
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2010-21 4
March 16, 2010
ATTACHMENT 2 - DRAFT Resolution
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-##
RESOLUTION AMENDING PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPEN SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC;
AMENDING RESOLUTION 2010-21
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2010, the City adopted resolution 2010-21, granting approval
of a Site Plan Review and a Conditional Use Permit to Open Systems International, Inc. (the
"Applicant") regarding proposed construction of a 92,000 square foot building and
accompanying site improvements on Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaugh's Meadowwoods Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of updated plans which increase the
proposed building to 100,400 square feet in size; and
WHEREAS, the planning commission held a duly called public hearing on April 13,
2010, where testimony was heard from the Applicant, city staff, and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the planning commission recommended approval of the amended site plan
review and conditional use permit, subject to certain terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, on , the city council reviewed the amended site plan and
conditional use permit for conformance with City ordinances, considered the recommendations
of the planning commission and heard comments from interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA, as follows:
1) Except as modified by Resolution 2010-21, construction shall be consistent with the
utility and lighting plans received by the City on February 2, 2010 and plans received by
the City on March 30, 2010.
2) Condition #3 of Resolution 2010-21 shall be considered null and void.
3) Plans shall be updated to include additional modulation on the western portion of the
north building facade.
Resolution No. 2010-##
DATE
4) The fire lane to the north of the building shall be paved to City specifications.
5) Except as explicitly stated above, all remaining terms and conditions of Resolution
2010-21 are hereby reaffirmed.
Dated: DATE
T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same: (Absent:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2010-iNt 2
DATE
f ,
upnerrx.
1720 U. .ISee x NE 812077.7100
Mim. ..k. e12077.7400 fax
Mi .aw b M4I3.IIXf0 wwwa.pxduora
Gala as
I..M .tb Mat tisPbn .d0 bmw.O rdwr po .tl
b m w ub m1 eM .wrtlbn mtl Ni l n. Jal dirt.=
.1.ct utlr to bona 8r 0. M Min...
ei maw. (Omit Nremi(
Rpiwr.m N.eMr In n
0.
Wo ad=
11.1.00
OSI, Inc.
MEDINA
HEADQUARTERS
0 6
DD PRICING PACKAGE
(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
P q. m No.
2171.001.01
Pram By
Cbnbd0y
0w.
24 FEBRUARY, 2010
10.1 2. 111•00...s.cluabsdbmo0 0•1,01*M0.
WI*. 0.n ma.0101 4. Wm. miewarrel
MCB
PGW
r A0• 4210,4:10.0 II= MM.,*
11..l.s
No.
Date
Description
3D VIEWS - EXTERIOR
3D -E101
:.
II
I-111_
1
1_
1 11
1
�_ iJLIL[
_�_
1.
Age lib eb
190 M rtlpl Street NE 1112.677.71111
Mirya6e 612877.716S1v
Magmata 6541}1076 yywompreheem
Carr
Miry e mh Yr Ys O N, g ad.* sec er p.. r
Win • wit Noy f M .pdoo. N On I ma II.Ay
liee,d
NEi pn.W Y. lo ft d Y.Sim ! We mem
ape ... Mai/NwIBeM
Britr .l.n Nu*
Du yy pp
OSI, Inc.
MEDINA
HEADQUARTERS
Qs
DD PRICING PACKAGE
(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
agectNo.
Dram By
Checked By
O ..
mambo wage..
2171.001.01
MCB
PGW
29 MARCH, 2010
SaM v
No.
Date
Oe6oliptioo
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -
OVERALL
A400
L
CW,2Oxafila Ml:u.nnw
alv rnOaSsom
P
ARC
Y
F2F�
}
1
0
6.
\\ 6j64gj Fj -
--
-8.71„2.,43 ;'- �
S9 Aere a
0
PARKING LOT INFORMATION
Minimum allowable pe r code = 170 space s
Pa rking space s provided = 253 spaces
To ta l area of parking & loading surfa ce s = 155, 575 sf
Total are a of interio r lanscaping within parkin g areas = 21,702 sf (13.90
SITE COVERAGE INFORMATIO N
Ma ximum c ove rage allowable per co de = 75%
(816,068 sf x .75 = 612,051 sf)
Actua l percenta ge of Impe rvio us Site Co vera ge = 28%
(232, 800 sf / 816,068 sf = . 2852)
AR CHITECTURAL SITE P LAN
�.,eer
SCALE: I.. 40'-0 "
Medina Fre Tru ck
12.16
7023
Width
Turk
Lo ckbLo ck Pm*
3b ert q AV.
E� Ns9 Se•
141v
1133
6.33
620
: 653
Semi Trader
Ism
4.00 193 0
WB-62
Ma der WW1
1.1166.74 3111
T,a clo rTnrt
Tro ller Track
4300
leer
62 0 lock le lock lkn e
830 Stee rhg Angle
8.0 3 NMnla 1k10MW
: 630
00
: 620
70.0
I
6.9.Ma.:.:d.1
_ -rwbdM
6 0.ee....e—�
Owin g n x•.
124 0 ``
OUTL OT
3 .4 ACRES
7422+:
c
r ReT :2Qf
a.r.r
:r+rrkr0 0 e ..ieu..,e.�e.r
4.010 0 rleirr.6l.0100 0. bar
,k.rtr .rk.1rr.+.r.r
qw•
rli.n.lrr
OSI, Inc.
MEDINA
HEADQUARTERS
<:,.. "7,4as'
yw
DD PRICING PACKAGE
[NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION]
PBW
er 24 FEBRUARY, 2010
rrrrrr rrrr.r +Mom
.Mr rrr 777.77..7.7 rrr .
• r7y 7S.Y.i r.•• ..••
Ma
0m
ldu.
$ 01100
0..6416011
OTT levees IE0162O
MICE ,_0 • 017 •1045
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
Al
1
ro o.�ii
-0 Z
l
1
-- J• 1: Leo =c 1 1 1 1 1 1 I8
11141 11 II" 4
1
1
t
1
NATIVE PRAIRIE AREA #1 -
NATIVE PRAIRIE AREA #2 -
NATIVE PRAIRIE AREA #3
NA TIVE PRAIRIE AREA #4
NATIVE PRAIRIE AREA #5
10 x 10FT GARDEN PLOTS WITH TREATED
2x6 EDGER AND MULCHED PATHS AND 6FT
H T. POLY CO ATED CH AIN LINK FENCE
'CIF,? CONCRETE
STERS; TYP .
SHORT WET WITH FLOWERS & PLUGS
TALL DRY WITH FLOWERS & PLUGS
- MEDIUM DRY WITH FLO WERS & PLUGS
- SHOR T DRY WITH FLOWERS & PLUGS
- SHO RT DRY WITH NO FLOWERS
AND
COL ORED
'CONCRET
-COURTY
SURFAC
LANDSCAPE LTERNATE&:
221 - DOUBLE THE PLANT QUANTITIES AT THE
EV RG REEN.SCREEN AT THE NO TH SIDE OF
THE SITE Q,
L2 - DOUBLE THE PLANT QUANTITIES AT THE
PARKING LOT ISLANDS (TREES, SHRUBS AND
PERENNIALS)
L3 - DOUBLE THE SHRUB PLANTINGS AT THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING
L4 - DOUBLE THE TREE PLANTINGS (DRIFTS)
AT THE WEST AND EAST OF THE SITE
L5 - ADD 120 SHRUBS BELOW TREE PLANTIN
AT SO UTH WEST CORNER OF SITE
24 " WIDE
MAINTENANCE
STRIP, TYP .
N OTE:
NO EXISTING TREES ARE
BEING REM OVED - NO TREE
PRESERVATION PLAN IS
REQUIRED
WETLAND
SHIT
Q MO$UM
RMATION
U
0 20' 40' !0'
11.1-1-J
W an
Oaps •Oon Ow*
MOOR E
OSI, Inc .
MEDINA
HEADQUARTERS
rR Q.8 I
DO PRICING PACKAGE
[NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION]
rw. •• •
• n..h
2171.001 .00
MJW
Deskad
0s
OF
3-29-10
.:..• •. .•."c •. o.i.,ray .r..i• ..•r .
.ter... ▪ : •• ••—...'. �...r�.
.+
• •..•.or ..:..a.�..
Mali=
N•
0•rc.gfim
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
LP100
PLAN LEG EN D
LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE: 1 '•4d -0'
NORT H
F
1
1 11.1
tug
101
I gilt
tint
11111
O
1
1
1
r
0
r
1
1
1
1
Agenda Items: 3 & 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: April 9, 2010
SUBJ: Rescheduling of August Commission Meeting and
Planning Department Updates for April 6, 2010 City Council Meeting
The State Primary Election date has been moved a month earlier and will be held this year on
August 10, 2010. The Commission meeting for August is scheduled that same night.
Staff recommends rescheduling the August Planning Commission meeting to Wednesday, August
11, 2010. Please check your calendar and we can discuss at the meeting. Thanks!
Following is a copy of the Planning Department Update presented to the City Council at their
meeting on April 6, 2010.
Ordinance Updates
A) Private Recreation Zoning District — staff believes that this ordinance is not essential for the
City's zoning ordinances to be consistent with the new Comp Plan. As a result, staff is
recommending that this ordinance be placed lower in the priority list.
B) Open Space Development/Conservation Design Regulations — the City Council and Planning
Commission provided direction at the concurrent meeting on March 16, and Barr Engineering
also coordinated fairly well attended Open House on March 23 to get additional feedback. The
Planning Commission and Park Commission are tentatively scheduled to review the ordinance
on April 13.
C) . Staging Point System — the City Council and Planning Commission discussed the "point
system" related to the Staging Plan at their March 16 and March 9 meetings. Staff intends to
present the point system at the May Planning Commission meeting.
Land Use Application Reviews
A) OSI Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP, Rezoning — NW corner of Arrowhead and Hwy 55 — The
City Council adopted resolutions of approval and an ordinance for rezoning (L1 BL1,
Outlot B and Outlot C) on March 16. The ordinance rezoning Outlot A (needs 4 votes to be
adopted) will be on the April 6 Council agenda. The applicant is looking to construct 8,400
additional square feet on the building because construction bids came in very competitive. The
Planning Commission will review the updated plans at the April 13 meeting.
B) Strand Lot Combination and Easement Vacation — 1985 Hamel Road — the applicant has
requested a lot combination in order to attach an adjacent 30 -foot Outlot onto their lot. The
request is also to vacate the existing drainage and utility easement which would run through the
interior of the new lot if the parcels are combined. Staff has requested additional information
from the applicant and it may be scheduled for review at a City Council meeting in April.
C) Bryson/LeMond Lot Line Rearrangement — 3000 and 3082 Willow Drive — the applicants
have applied to shift the lot line between their properties. Staff is awaiting additional
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2
information from the applicant, and it may be scheduled for a Public Hearing at the May
Planning Commission meeting.
D) Bradley Leawood 3rd Addn Plat — 3415 Leawood Drive — the applicant has applied to split the
existing lot into two parcels. Staff is awaiting additional information from the applicant, and it
may be scheduled for a Public Hearing at the May Planning Commission meeting.
E) Appeal of Administrative Decision — 2590 Keller Road — The City Council heard the property
owner's and contractor's appeal of the denial of a permit to construct a pair of 4'x4'
monuments within the City right-of-way adjacent to 2590 Keller at the January 5 meeting and
adopted a resolution ordering the removal of the improvements on February 3. Staff will
inspect the property on June 1 to verify removal.
F) Septic System Wetland Setback Variance — 1255 Medina Road —The City Council approved
the resolution at the January 5 Council meeting. Staff is working with the applicant regarding
the conditions of the approval.
G) Holy Name Cemetery — The City Council approved resolutions for the lot combination,
CUP/Site Plan, Interim Use Permit and easement vacation. Staff is working with the applicant
to get all necessary documents recorded correctly.
H) Wrangler's Restaurant — 32 Hamel Road — the Council approved resolutions at the July 21
meeting. Staff has been in contact with the applicant regarding recording of the plat and
requirements for submitting building permits. The applicant has requested an additional
extension to file the plat, and staff has prepared a resolution granting another 6 months.
Additional Projects
A) Comprehensive Plan Update — Staff has completed formatting of the "final version" of the
2010-2030 Comprehensive. The Plan is available on the City's website, and printed versions
are available for City officials who need a paper copy. The City continues the process of
updating ordinances necessary so that the official controls are consistent with the Plan.
B) Zoning Enforcement (Hamel Station tree removal) — Staff sent the developer notice of their
violations of the City Tree Preservation and Shoreland Overlay District ordinances. The
developer has requested to speak with the City Council on April 6 about options for
remediation. Staff will seek direction from the Council on how to proceed with enforcement
actions following this discussion.
C) Zoning Enforcement (Manure Management) — staff has began the process of inspecting
manure management consistent with procedures set forth in the City's Manure Management
Policy (80.10). Staff intends to complete initial inspections in the month of April.
D) Zoning Enforcement (General) — staff has received a number of complaints about unsightly
outdoor storage on residential properties over the last month (likely because snow has melted
away and neighbors are outside trying to enjoy the weather). Staff has conducted inspections at
the locations and sent letters directing the property owners to remove the stored materials
within a reasonable time. Staff has suggested to property owners that Clean -Up Day may be an
opportunity to cheaply dispose of the items. If no action is taken within the timeframe allowed
by staff, Medina Police will be consulted for potential next steps.
E) Potential Future Land Use Applications — staff has met with two potential developers
regarding residential developments which they would like to submit in the next month
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2
Medina Planning Commission Draft March 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
2 Draft Meeting Minutes
3 Tuesday, March 9, 2010
4
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner R. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners, Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, John Anderson, Kent Williams,
9 and Beth Nielsen.
10
11 Absent: Charles Nolan and Kathleen Martin
12
13 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne
14
15 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda:
16
17 No public comments.
18
19 3. Update from City Council Proceedings:
20
21 Weir presented the Council update.
22
23 4. Planning Department Report:
24
25 Finke updated the Commission that the April meeting would be held jointly with the Park
26 Commission to get feedback from both Commissions at the same time to save time. The topic
27 will be the crafting of the Conservation Design Ordinance.
28
29 Finke further updated the Commission that staff is anticipating two small land use applications.
30
31 5. Approval of February 9, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes:
32
33 Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to approve the February 9, 2010 minutes with
34 recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Martin)
35
36 6. Discussion - Implementation of Staging Plan within 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan
37
38 Finke presented the Staging Plan. He asked the Commission if they thought the point system
39 should be set up for only the properties within the 2016-2020 phasing plan looking to jump
40 ahead, or if it should apply to all properties including those available for development today.
41
42 Finke said staff recommended only applying the staging point system plan to properties in the
43 2016-2020 phasing plan looking to jump ahead. He said the City has their general standards and
44 to add the point system to all properties would maybe be too much to require of those that are
45 eligible to develop today.
46
1
Medina Planning Commission Draft March 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 V. Reid said her first impression was that it was complicated. She thought it would be important
2 to have a document that is clear as to what applies to an application. She said it would be nice to
3 have a document that helps developers know what the City's expectations are prior to applying.
4 Finke said the Maple Grove point system has worked well for developers since they know what
5 is expected of them. He said the point system could be made more general with what the City's
6 priorities are.
7
8 V. Reid said she put points down on items that she feels are important. She said it isn't like the
9 City has a lot of land to apply the point system to, but thought it seemed like a huge process for
10 the few empty lots that exist in the City.
11
12 Finke said there are quite a few lots the point system could be applied to. He said the City has
13 more land near Loretto in the staging plan.
14
15 Wier asked the Commission if they were familiar with the community survey sent out to
16 residents. She said it may be helpful to take into consideration what was important to the
17 residents when discussing the point system.
18
19 R. Reid asked if the point system required a certain threshold to be approved. Finke said like
20 Maple Grove it doesn't necessarily mean approval.
21
22 R. Reid asked if the light green areas on the Urban Services Phasing Plan have sewer now.
23 Finke said no. She asked what triggered building the sewer. He said there is infrastructure all
24 over and is available. She asked what if it doesn't develop in the orderly pattern as shown on the
25 staging plan. He said it may not develop as shown, but ultimately it is up to the landowners.
26 The City cannot force landowners to develop. He also said the landowner/developer would
27 construct the pipe to their property, not the City.
28
29 Williams asked if the Commission needed to come up with standards for properties to be able to
30 jump forward. Finke said yes, and asked the Commission if the point system should apply to
31 those that are within the developable area already. Anderson said the staging plan should only
32 apply to those that want to jump ahead of the staging plan, not for those currently able to
33 develop.
34
35 Consensus of the Commission was to use the staging point system plan for properties in the
36 2016-2020 Plan wanting to jump ahead. R. Ried said the hurdle should be fairly high to allow a
37 project to jump ahead.
38
39 Finke asked the Commission if anything stood out in the point system that they would want to
40 discuss or bring to his attention. Williams and V. Reid agreed that if infrastructure is not
41 available, properties shouldn't be allowed to develop.
42
43 Anderson said capital improvements required of the City is important to consider. Finke said the
44 City is collecting fees currently. If the City has to accelerate its infrastructure improvements the
45 developer would have to agree to fees.
46
2
Medina Planning Commission Draft March 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 Finke said you can only jump up one phasing period. He asked if someone is only requesting to
2 jump up 6 months rather than 5 years, should the rating of the point system be different or less.
3
4 V. Reid liked preservation of natural features. She said she assumes the City already has
5 standards for a lot of the items on the point system spreadsheet staff prepared. Finke clarified the
6 applicant would have to exceed the existing City requirements.
7
8 Williams asked why it would be important for projects to install fire sprinklers or install quality
9 landscaping when the City already has requirements. Finke clarified the use of fire sprinklers or
10 installing quality landscaping are listed in the comprehensive plan. He said for a development to
11 earn points for quality landscaping would mean that the project exceeds what would otherwise be
12 allowed under a building permit.
13
14 Finke asked the Commission if they would be willing to consider a development if a project
15 already has really good landscaping, was LEED certified..... He asked if that would be enough
16 for an applicant to jump ahead. R. Reid felt that infrastructure should be available. Finke
17 clarified existing user fees do assist in paying for improvements.
18
19 V. Reid said the number of new jobs brought to the City is important to her. Finke said it is
20 really a sustainable measure. The benefit to the City is property taxes paid by the user and the
21 jobs are for the residents.
22
23 Williams asked if on page three of the staff report the language came directly from the
24 comprehensive plan. Finke said yes.
25
26 Williams said the point system is just as subjective as the comprehensive plan objectives.
27
28 Nielsen said guidance is necessary. Finke said staff could work on a narrative. V. Reid said it
29 needs to be clarified what is different from what is already in the City ordinance and what they
30 need to do to go above and beyond.
31
32 R. Reid said staff should bring back to them a draft of the staging point system. Finke said staff
33 could use existing developments as examples. He said he was also bringing the point system
34 spreadsheet to the next City Council meeting for them to rate.
35
36 Finke asked for clarification if the point system would only be used for a project to jump ahead.
37 R Reid said it should be designed to make it very difficult for someone to develop early.
38 Williams said he felt it depended on how many years an applicant wanted to jump ahead.
39 V. Reid said it would depend on the extraordinary benefit they are proposing. R. Reid
40 recommended a project would get more points if it reached a certain threshold.
41
42 Mike Leuer @ 1522 Medina Road explained to the Commission that when he purchased his
43 property five years ago it was developable at that time. Since that time the City has changed the
44 regulations and the staging plan put his property into the 2016 plan rather than being allowed to
45 develop today. He questioned why he would have to go through the point system to develop. He
3
Medina Planning Commission Draft March 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 questioned why it's such a big deal to develop going east -west. He said going through a point
2 system appears to have a lot of unknowns and asked for it to not be required.
3
4 Leuer told the Commission they should understand why he is frustrated. R. Reid asked if his
5 property was within the business park zoning district. Nielsen clarified it's the comprehensive
6 plan that restricts his property. Finke said yes.
7
8 Williams asked Leuer if he would prefer to see the point system more generalized or more
9 specific. Leuer responded by saying more general. Nielsen asked Leuer if he brought his
10 concerns to the City during the comprehensive plan review process. Leuer said he raised his
11 concerns to the City Council.
12
13 Bob Kohns, Real Estate Broker for Leuer, felt the proposed point system gives power to City
14 staff to determine if a project should go to the Planning Commission. He felt the proposed
15 system promotes City staff as the gate keepers, and the City Council should be the one to
16 maintain the power of who can and cannot develop. He said the City Council now has the power
17 and he would like for it to continue that way. He added Maple Grove's staging plan was
18 disbanded and they rely on the use of Planned Unit Developments. He also stated that Medina's
19 properties are more unique than Maple Grove's. Finke said staff would not hold back an
20 application from the Commission if they didn't make the required number of points.
21
22 Kohns asked the Commission to open their arms to developers. He said he prefers more clarity
23 rather than general requirements for the design of the point system. Williams said the
24 Commission can establish very general or a very detailed set of requirements. Williams asked
25 Kohn which he preferred. Kohn said it's better to be black and white.
26
27 Kohn said he'd prefer more flexibility for the Council. He said the staging plan should not have
28 been approved, but since it has to be done, he'd rather have the point system be a small piece of
29 the approval process.
30
31 Nielsen asked why the staging plan was established. Weir said to "promote orderly and compact
32 growth in the City's urban areas, and the east -west growth pattern was in place so properties
33 would develop efficient infrastructure, including sewer and water."
34
35 Williams said he would prefer the point system to be as simple and general as possible. V. Reid
36 suggested commercial properties have fewer requirements than residential properties if they want
37 to jump ahead. Anderson said the commercial and residential attributes are different. Finke
38 asked the Commission if they were looking for a simpler point system for commercial. The
39 Commission said yes.
40
41 Finke said he liked the recommendation of the Commission to rate the point system with a
42 maximum number of points. He said he would have the City Council rate the point system with
43 a maximum number of points to more easily identify what is priority.
44
45
46
4
Medina Planning Commission Draft March 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 7. Call Special Concurrent Meeting with City Council for March 16, 2010 at 5:30 p.m.
2
3 Motion by Williams, seconded by Anderson to call a special concurrent meeting with the City
4 Council for March 16, 2010. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Martin)
5
6
7 8. City Council Meeting Schedule: Discussion of representation at Council meeting.
8
9
10 9. Adiourn: Motion by Anderson, seconded by Williams to adjourn at 8:46 p.m. Motion
11 carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Martin)
12
5
1 MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
2 OF MARCH 16, 2010
3
4 The Planning Commission of Medina, Minnesota met in special concurrent session with
5 the Medina City Council on March 16, 2010 at 5:36 p.m. in the Medina City Hall.
6
7 I. Call to Order
8
9 Members present: John Anderson, Beth Nielsen, Victoria Reid, Kent Williams,
10 Robin Reid (arrived at 5:46 p.m.)
11 Members absent: Nolan, Martin
12 City Council Members Present: Weir, Siitari, Smith
13 City Council Members Absent: Crosby, Johnson
14 Also present: City Administrator Chad M. Adams; City Planner Dusty Finke;
15 Park Commissioners Ben Benson, Ann Thies and Janet White;
16 City Conservation Design Consultant Dan Petrik
17
18 II. Open Space/Conservation Design Ordinance — Barr Engineering
19
20 City Planner Dusty Finke provided some background of the City's Open
21 Space/Conservation design work conducted over the past few years, including the Open
22 Space Task Force, Open Space Report, and Comprehensive Planning process. Finke
23 introduced Dan Petrik, Barr Engineering, as the City's consultant that would be guiding
24 the City through the ordinance preparation.
25
26 Dan Petrik, Barr Engineering introduced himself to the attendees and explained his
27 background with preparation of the Hanover conservation design ordinance. He provided
28 a slide presentation related that included a project overview and timeline, expectations for
29 tonight's meeting, review of conservation design and comparable regulations, questions
30 on the comparable regulations memo, and goal priorities and regulation approach.
31
32 Petrik stated that conservation design is often used to cluster homes on smaller lots in
33 order to permanently protect significant amounts of designated open space. He provided
34 some examples for an urban core, developed suburbs, developing suburbs and explained
35 issues related to urban/rural transition and rural and agricultural.
36
37 Petrik illustrated some concepts of preserving ecological areas during development of
38 parcels and outlined market condition considerations including developer's risk/rewards,
39 profit, certainty and time as well as homebuyer preference, supply/demand and location.
40
41 Petrik discussed the regulatory framework for conservation design ordinances. He
42 addressed uses, density/lot size, open space amount, design standards and permanent
43 protection for zoning. He also referenced processing procedures, submittal requirements,
44 and design standards for subdivision.
45
46 Robin Reid arrived at 5:46 p.m.
47
Medina Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes
March 16, 2010
1
1 Petrik provided an overview of how to encourage conservation design and stated in order
2 to be successful, conservation design should not be more difficult to implement than a
3 base district (including processing, time frame and cost to developer). He added that
4 project feasibility (meeting the market's attractiveness gap) and flexibility were important
5 components to encouraging conservation design.
6
7 Petrik discussed setting and achieving specific goals that included generalized open space
8 vs. specific goals as well as incentives, standards and requirements to achieve the goals.
9 He stated that conservation design ordinances tend to be much more successful if they are
10 tailored towards specific goals.
11
12 Finke stated that the incentives the City could offer to support conservation design are
13 likely finite, so identifying more specific goals would allows the City to concentrate its
14 incentives towards situations which best meet the City's objectives.
15
16 Petrik provided examples and key variations between three existing conservation design
17 ordinances in Inver Grove Heights, Lake Elmo and Hanover. There is a good deal of
18 variation with relation to: the main objectives of each city's open spaces; whether the
19 conservation design was required by the ordinance or encouraged through incentives;
20 minimum amount of required open space; and the aggressiveness of incentives offered to
21 potential developers.
22
23 Discussion was held on implementing some mandatory regulation to preserve the highest
24 priority natural resources in the City versus an entirely optional/incentive based approach.
25 Some members expressed interest in mandatory development standards in areas in the
26 community where exceptionally high value natural resources were located. Discussion
27 was held about a public reaction if the City were to map these high value areas.
28
29 Petrik stated that the regulations enacted by a city can vary depending on the main
30 objectives it wishes to achieve. Commissioners and Council members conducted a goal
31 setting exercise to determine highest and lowest priorities as a guiding tool in drafting an
32 ordinance. General consensus of the members present included high priority being
33 placed on protection of sensitive ecological resources, protection of views/vistas from
34 development (including preservation of rural character) and protection of corridors for
35 habitat movement. Lowest priority areas included protection of agricultural
36 practices/economy and transition between urban and rural areas.
37
38 Petrik described collaborative processes that other communities are attempting to
39 implement in order work with developers on conservation design. Discussion was held
40 on approaches to encourage developers to engage and understand the City's conservation
41 design ordinance when adopted. General consensus of the members present was to
42 institute a collaborative planning approach between a developer and the City.
43
44
45 III. Adjournment
46
47 The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Medina Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes 2
March 16, 2010
MEDINA
CONCURRENT MEETING AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION AND
PARK COMMISSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of Medina's
City Code pertaining to the creation of regulations for Conservation
Design and Open Space Protection.
5. Adjourn
POS 1`bD IN CITY HALL April 8, 2010
Barr Engineering Company
4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803
Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 • www.barr.com An EEO Employer
BARR
Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO • Bismarck, ND
Memorandum
To: Medina Planning and Park Commissions
From: Dan Petrik
Subject: Conservation Design Ordinance
Date: April 7, 2010
Project: 23 27 1104.00 001 DRP
Introduction
A public hearing will be held on April 13 to consider the attached conservation design ordinance. The
ordinance was drafted in response to direction from the joint meeting of the Council, Planning
Commission and Parks Commission of March 16 and feedback received at the public open house of March
23. The intent of the ordinance is to implement policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the 2007 Open
Space Report concerning the protection of the City's rural character and sensitive ecological resources. A
summary of the March 23 open house is included at the end of this memo. The attached ordinance
contains extensive comments clarifying specific regulatory issues. Following is a summary of the key
issues regarding ordinance development.
Regulatory Approach
Conservation Design (CD) is implemented as an Overlay District in the Rural Residential District and in
any residential district guided for sewered residential use in the Comprehensive Plan. Conservation design
is a development option (e.g. not required) in these areas and is encouraged through various incentives
(described below). The CD Overlay District is designed to be implemented as a PUD. As such, the CD
District includes design standards and requirements to guide the design and review of CD-PUDs that
achieve city goals and policies. As a PUD, the Council does have discretion to deviate from the standards
and requirements of the CD Overlay District. The overall "tone" of the CD Overlay District is one of
flexibility especially in terms of incentives (density and site design) and the amount of required open
space. The main idea is to "let the land speak" and approach the design of each project on a case -by -case
basis. Incorporating collaboration concepts into the design and review process is an additional way of
introducing flexibility into the ordinance. The collaboration option is discussed later in this memo.
A Conservation Design-PUD is only an option on larger tracts of land, defined as 40 acres and larger in the
Rural Residential District and 20 acres in sewered residential districts. Larger tracts are needed to allow for
creative site designs that achieve development priorities. There is also little to be gained through CD
development in terms of protecting ecological resources on smaller parcels. On these parcels, existing
regulations are effective in protecting these resources.
This regulatory approach was chosen because it works within the existing zoning framework and is
relatively straightforward to administer. Spatially, it is applied to existing zoning districts and it uses the
existing PUD district for application processing. An alternative to this regulatory approach would have
been to map a new district based on ecological resources and critical. Implementing this approach would
be challenging from technical, administrative and political perspectives and wouldn't necessarily improve
outcomes.
Incentives
Two types of incentives are offered in the CD Overlay District, density incentives and flexibility from
various other regulations. Density incentives were felt to have more relevance in the Rural Residential
District, whereas, flexibility from other regulations were felt to have more market value in sewered
residential areas. 100 percent of base density is offered as an incentive in the Rural Residential District and
20 percent of base density is offered in sewered residential areas. Offering the incentive as a percentage of
base density is used in order to work within the existing regulatory framework.
In addition to density, flexibility around lot size, lot width, and setbacks are offered for CD development in
both the Rural Residential District and in sewered residential districts. Additional incentives for CD
development in sewered residential districts are offered and include flexibility around housing type,
landscaping, screening, wetland buffers, and tree preservation.
Open Space
A flexible approach is also taken with regard to "required open space." A preferred range of open space is
listed for CD development in the Rural Residential District and sewered residential districts. The city
already has significant areas of open space. The intent of this section, along with the specified preservation
priorities, is to target the preservation of open space on key priority resources as opposed to maximizing
open space (quality over quantity). The ordinance lists the following preservation priorities for designating
open space:
1. Sensitive ecological resources
2. Land connecting these resources
3. Scenic views
Comments received at the public open house suggested that trails should also be a priority for designated
open space. Achieving this public amenity may be an important goal for the development of some parcels,
but it is not related to the preservation of important resources. Incorporating public trails and/or public
open space is included in the design standards and may become a development goal or priority.
Open Space Design Standards
The section on open space design standards provides guidance on how the space should be designed
regarding connectivity and the relationship of certain elements. Some cities get very specific in this area.
The approach taken was to provide general guidance as opposed to many specifics to go with the overall
tone of flexibility. There may be opportunities for adding more guidance in this area to address the
community's needs.
Sewage Treatment
The City's Building Inspector was consulted for developing regulations in this area. Individual treatment
systems are required for CD development; however, the placement of drainfields in commonly owned open
space is allowed to provide flexibility in site design.
2
Application Processing
Introduction to Issue
There are two options for processing CD-PUD applications. The first is to use the existing procedures in
the PUD ordinance without modification. The second option is to incorporate "collaborative" elements
into the CD Overlay district to supplement the PUD application processing provisions.
Evolving planning thought and practice recognize that achieving the goals and priorities of conservation
design requires significant site design flexibility. Prescriptive one size fits all regulations are not suited
towards addressing the unique environmental characteristics of each parcel and maximizing project
benefits for both the developer and community. The proposed ordinance is drafted to allow flexibility
around specific site design standards. Determining a process for achieving a site design that maximizes
project benefits requires further community discussion and city direction. Planning practice indicates that
early agreement on a vision and development goals for a site are very important as well as developing a
level of trust between the city and developer.
The existing PUD processing requirements may be sufficient to achieve these objectives. However, the
following "collaborative" language is offered as an application processing option. Throughout the
ordinance are references to an "initial planning stage" of application processing. This language will be
clarified based on direction for application processing.
Following is proposed application processing language that could be included as a final section in the
ordinance. This language is intended to supplement existing PUD processing procedures and precede the
Concept Plan Stage of the existing PUD procedures.
Proposed Processing Language
The City of Medina recognizes the unique qualities of each land parcel and the challenges specific to
preserving the City's rural character. In order to enhance opportunities for protecting the rural character
through CD-PUD development, the City intends to engage landowners and developers in a collaborative
process that emphasizes flexibility in the design, regulation, and review of CD-PUD projects. The review
and approval procedures of the PUD District shall be used to review and approve CD-PUDs. However,
prior to the Concept Plan Stage PUD application, applications for CD-PUDs shall participate in a goal
planning stage.
The purpose of the goal planning stage is to identify site design and preservation goals and assess areas of
flexibility for achieving both developer and city goals for the specific land parcel. Key procedural
elements include:
• Appointment of a project steering committee by the City Council to conduct initial discussions
with the developer and to develop a project guidance report and recommendations to the City
Council. The Steering Committee shall include members of the Planning Commission, City
Council and staff of a size determined by the Council. Steering Committee meetings shall be
noticed as public meetings.
• A joint (Steering Committee and Developer) review of the site conditions of the parcel within the
context of the city's open space priorities (see section 826.xx Subd. 5).
o The developer will provide a map of the site conditions information specified in the PUD
District (Section 827.33. Subd 2. (d)) along with the sensitive ecological resources
3
identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the 2007 Open Space Report and
views from roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the 2007
Open Space Report.
o The Steering Committee and developer will conduct a joint site visit to inspect the parcel
and assess its resources.
• Assessment of the development potential at base density as determined by existing regulations.
Developer to prepare this assessment with guidance by, and review of, city staff.
• Discussion of project concept and goals by Steering Committee.
• Agreement on project goals and key concept elements, including:
o Specific resources (ecological and views) and corresponding land area to be protected.
o Public trails and open space facilities, if any.
o Plans for the protected land including restoration measures, if any.
o Preliminary agreement on density incentives and open space amount.
o Preliminary agreement on other areas of regulatory flexibility
o Communication and procedural expectations between parties
• Development of a Project Guidance Report by staff and approved by the Steering Committee and
developer. The report will summarize the project concept, mutual and individual party goals, and
context for offering project flexibility. Recommendations will address:
o Proposed density incentives
o Proposed amount of required open space
o Other areas of regulatory flexibility
o Other proposed public benefits
o Communications and procedures for processing application
• Review and approval of Guidance Report and Recommendations by the Council and Developer.
Report and recommendations will be used for guiding the remaining process which will continue
with PUD Concept Plan application as outlined in the PUD ordinance.
Discussion
The proposed processing language is intended to specify how the city would collaboratively engage
developers early in the process. The process provides the basic information needed to begin discussions
and provides opportunities for building mutual understanding and trust. This process also expects that
both parties adhere to these initial discussions as outlined in the project guidance report. The Steering
Committee is used to guide this process up to the point of getting Council Approval on the Project
Guidance Report. This group of city leaders is used to provide the developer with some certainty that the
initial discussions as documented in the Project Guidance Report will be honored throughout the
remaining approval process (e.g. concept, development stage and final stage).
The city will need to determine if there will be an application fee for this process. The CD District is
intended to provide incentives to encourage a CD approach to development. The process to get there
should not be costly and time consuming for the developer. The city could consider charging a small fixed
application fee. Charging the developer for staff/consultant time for a continuing series of meetings would
not send a positive signal.
4
Summary of Comments from the March 23, 2010 Public Open House
Approximately 20 people attended the open house. About three or four participants identified as
residents/owners of large tracts of undeveloped land. The remaining participants were identified as
residents of the city. The open house started with a presentation covering the following topics:
• An overview of the project and its relationship to the 2007 Open Space Report and
Comprehensive Plan
• An introduction to conservation subdivision design, what it is and how it protects rural character
• Review of key regulatory issues and discussion to get group feedback. Key discussion topics
included:
o Ordinance goals and preservation priorities (to confirm priorities identified at the March
16 meeting of the Council, Planning Commission and Parks Commission)
o Opinions on whether the ordinance should be voluntary or required
o Reaction to a range of density incentives
o Reaction to flexibility on other performance standards/requirements
o Reaction to the use of "collaboration" to introduce flexibility into the review and approval
process.
Participants also completed a short survey related to the above described regulatory issues. Attached is a
copy of the survey including a summary of the quantitative results. Following is a summary of the written
comments as well as verbal comments made at the meeting.
Overall Observations of all Comments
• There is overall support for a conservation design ordinance that is voluntary. However, there is a
minority that is skeptical that it will amount to much of a difference compared to existing
regulations.
• There is broad support for the use of density incentives as well as in being flexible around other
performance standards (e.g. minimum lot size, setbacks, etc.) in order to encourage this approach.
• There is also support for a flexible approach to designing these projects by working more
"collaboratively" with developers. Note that no specifics were discussed on how this would occur.
• There was also some generalized concern about allowing more development through incentives
and the uncertainty as to what the overall impact of that development might be.
Comments and Questions Related to Overall Goals of the Ordinance
• What is the goal, more open space or the protection of resources? There is already a lot of open
space in the city, how much more is needed? Perhaps the goal should be to target the open space
on the most important resources needed for protection.
• How different will the land look with conservation design compared to development with existing
regulations (e.g. wetland buffers and tree preservation)?
• Protecting ecological resources (trees) and views seem to be incompatible goals. This needs to be
resolved on a project -by -project basis.
• If protecting ecological corridors is important, the city needs to be clear about this through
mapping.
• Some felt that development using conservation subdivision design would have limited potential
due to soils and their distribution within the city.
• The ordinance should clearly define priorities for designating open space.
5
" T h e r e i s w i d e s p r e a d s u p p o r t f o r t h e p r i o r i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d a t t h e M a r c h 1 6 m e e t i n g . T h e s e i n c l u d e
t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f :
o S e n s i t i v e e c o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s
o V i e w s / v i s t a s f r o m r o a d s
o E c o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e c o r r i d o r s f o r w i l d l i f e m o v e m e n t a n d h a b i t a t .
" T h r e e p e o p l e m e n t i o n e d t h a t t r a i l s s h o u l d b e a d d e d t o t h e p r i o r i t y l i s t
" A c o u p l e o f p e o p l e e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n o v e r l o s s o f l a n d o w n e r p r o p e r t y r i g h t s w i t h e a c h n e w
r e g u l a t i o n .
" I t d o e s n ' t m a k e s e n s e t o c r e a t e a n e w c o n s e r v a t i o n d e s i g n o r d i n a n c e o n t o p o f e x i s t i n g t i g h t
r e g u l a t i o n s ( e . g . w e t l a n d b u f f e r s , t r e e p r e s e r v a t i o n , 5 a c r e s o f c o n t i g u o u s s o i l s )
" C o n s e r v a t i o n d e s i g n s e e m s c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e o n s m a l l p a r c e l s . T h e r e i s v e r y l i t t l e d e v e l o p m e n t
p o t e n t i a l o n s m a l l p a r c e l s . H o w e v e r , w i t h i n c e n t i v e s , t h e y c o u l d b e d e v e l o p e d a n d e n d u p w i t h n o
n e t i n c r e a s e i n g r e e n s p a c e a n d p r o b a b l y l e s s . D o n ' t w a n t t o l o s e g r e e n s p a c e t h a t w o u l d h a v e
s t a y e d g r e e n a n y w a y . C o n s e r v a t i o n d e s i g n m a k e s m u c h m o r e s e n s e f o r l a r g e r p a r c e l s w i t h i n t h e
c o n t e x t o f e x i s t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s .
" S o m e e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n w i t h t h e p o t e n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n p r o p e r t y v a l u e s ( a n d t a x e s ) f o r l a n d
a d j a c e n t t o d e s i g n a t e d o p e n s p a c e b u t n o t p a r t o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t .
" T h e r e i s s o m e l i m i t e d c o n c e r n t h a t c o n s e r v a t i o n s u b d i v i s i o n s w i l l e n c o u r a g e m o r e d e v e l o p m e n t
a n d l e a d t o m o r e t r a f f i c .
C o m m e n t s R e l a t e d t o F l e x i b i l i t y , D e n s i t y , a n d O t h e r i n c e n t i v e s .
" M o s t f e l t t h a t t h e a m o u n t o f r e q u i r e d o p e n s p a c e f o r e a c h p r o j e c t s h o u l d b e v a r i a b l e d e p e n d i n g o n
t h e q u a l i t y a n d q u a n t i t y o f r e s o u r c e s . O n e p e r s o n a d d e d t h a t t h e i m p a c t o f e x i s t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s
s h o u l d a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d .
" O n l y a c o u p l e p e o p l e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a f i x e d 5 0 % g o a l s h o u l d b e a p p l i e d t o a l l p r o j e c t s .
" M o s t f e l t t h a t t h e c i t y s h o u l d b e f l e x i b l e i n g i v i n g d e n s i t y i n c e n t i v e s w i t h i n a r a n g e . H i g h e r d e n s i t y
w o u l d b e o f f e r e d o n p a r c e l s w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t r e s o u r c e s t o p r o t e c t a n d l e s s d e n s i t y o n p a r c e l s w i t h
f e w e r r e s o u r c e s . A r a n g e o f a c c e p t a b l e d e n s i t i e s ( a s a n i n c e n t i v e ) s h o u l d b e c l e a r l y s p e c i f i e d . O n
t h e s u r v e y , m o s t e x p r e s s e d a n i n t e r e s t i n a l l o w d e n s i t y i n c e n t i v e s o f u p t o 2 t o 3 u n i t s p e r 1 0 a c r e s ,
a s s u m i n g t h e r e a r e i m p o r t a n t r e s o u r c e s t o p r o t e c t .
" I t w a s n o t e d t h a t t h e r e i s t r a d e - o f f b e t w e e n t h e o p e n s p a c e a m o u n t a n d d e n s i t y ( e . g . t h e h i g h e r t h e
d e n s i t y , t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e r e w i l l b e l e s s o p e n s p a c e .
" T h r e e p a r t i c i p a n t s s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e y o p p o s e d t h e u s e o f a n y d e n s i t y i n c e n t i v e s ( i t ' s
p o s s i b l e t h a t m o r e f e l t t h i s w a y ) . T h e y p r e f e r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t p a t t e r n r e s u l t i n g f r o m e x i s t i n g
r e g u l a t i o n s .
" C i t y s h o u l d b e a w a r e o f t h e m a r k e t a n d t h a t i n c e n t i v e s n e e d t o b e s u f f i c i e n t t o m a k e a p r o j e c t
e c o n o m i c a l l y v i a b l e .
" F o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n t o r e a l l y w o r k , t h e r e n e e d s t o b e a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f c o n c e s s i o n s b y b o t h p a r t i e s
( d e v e l o p e r a n d c i t y )
" F l e x i b i l i t y a n d c o l l a b o r a t i o n w o u l d b e a b r e a t h o f f r e s h a i r .
6
OPEN HOUSE FEEDBACK
City of Medina
Conservation Design/Open Space Regulation Development
Feedback Request — March 23, 2010 (Feedback Summary)
Background: The City of Medina is developing new land use regulations governing how
land is developed in the Rural Residential District. The regulations are intended to
implement policies in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the 2007 Open space Report.
The Goal of the regulations is to preserve the unique rural character of Medina. This
would be accomplished by guiding residential land development in ways that would
protect ecological resources and important vistas or views through a development pattern
referred to as "conservation development." This pattern of development clusters homes
on smaller lots in order to permanently protect significant amounts of open space. This is
in contrast to "traditional development" patterns that subdivide all of a parcel into
approximately equal sized lots. Conservation design or "clustering" may be implemented
at the same density as current regulations or at higher densities to encourage this pattern.
Traditionat Development
Cousetv'atien Development
Directions: The City is requesting your feedback on important issues to help guide the
development of these new regulations. Please answer the following questions.
1. Following are the top three goal priorities as identified by the Council, Planning
and Park Commissions.
a. Protection of sensitive ecological resources
b. Protection of views/vistas from city roads
c. Protect ecological resource corridors for wildlife movement and habitat
Are there any missing top priorities? If so, please list them below:
Are there any particular views or vistas that should be protected? If so, please
describe.
2. The new regulations could be required or encouraged as a development option.
What is your preference for how these regulations should be applied? (check one)
❑ Required
❑ Optional
4 responses
7 responses
3. If optional, allowing increased density is often used to encourage conservation
design. How should the City use density to encourage conservation and open
space development? (check one)
❑ Leave density unchanged (approximately 1 unit per 10 acres) 0 responses
❑ Offer density up to 2 units per 10 acres. 0 responses
❑ Offer density up to 3 units per 10 acres 3 responses
❑ Allow flexibility within these ranges so that higher density could be
offered on parcels with significant resources to protect and less density on
parcels with fewer resources to protect. 6 responses
4. Designating an amount of open space is the most important element in
conservation design. How much open space should be designated? (Check one)
❑ 50% 2 responses
❑ More than 50 % 1 response
❑ Less than 50 % 2 responses
❑ A variable amount depending on the quality and quantity of resources on a
given parcel. More open space would be sought on parcels with many
resources and less open space on parcels with fewer resources.6 responses
5. What concerns, if any, do you have with the City taking a more flexible and
collaborative approach with landowners/developers in the design and review of
development plans?
6. Do you have any additional thoughts or comments that the city should consider as
it develops the conservation design and open space regulations?
DRAFT ORDINANCE
CONSERVATION DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Draft — April 7 2010
Section 826.xx. Conservation Design (CD) — Purpose.
The purpose of this district is to preserve the City's rural character which includes ecological resources,
wildlife corridors, and scenic views, while allowing residential development consistent with the goals
and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and 2007 Open Space Report. The purpose of this
district is to provide development flexibility through greater collaboration with landowners and
developers that reflects the varying market circumstances and the individual characteristics of their
properties
Section 826.xx Intent.
Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by approving a
Planned Unit Development for portions of property in the Rural Residential District and all
residential districts corresponding to residential land uses guided for municipal services and by
adopting the comprehensive regulations contained herein. Parcels lying in these districts may be
developed according to the regulations of the CD Overlay District or the base zoning district.
Comment: City policy in the Open Space Report and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as
the majority of comments received at the two project meetings support conservation
design as a development option.
Subd. 2. In return for requiring preserved open space as contained herein; it is the intent of the
City to allow dwelling unit density that will provide a development density equal to or greater than
the prior zoning for the Rural Residential District and sewered residential districts.
Comment: City policy in the Open Space Report and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as
the majority of comments received at the two project meetings support the use of density
incentives to encourage this development option.
Subd. 3. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in the
underlying zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the PUD
District, or if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this
District as part of the final PUD plans.
Subd. 4. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless
specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City Council, the
underlying zoning for the subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District
(CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall
then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and
agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all PUDs in the Conservation Design
Overlay District unless exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council.
Section 826.xx Definitions.
Subd. 1. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed conservation design subdivision
less the amount of land that includes: hydric soils, slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required
wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain.
\\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(April 7).doc
1
Subd. 2. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A
nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations
the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space values of real
property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open -space use, protecting
natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical,
architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real property.
Subd. 3. Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates the
concepts of designated open space and clustering of dwelling units.
Subd. 4. Designated Open Space. Open space that is designated within a conservation design
subdivision to be placed under a conservation easement permanently restricting future
development. Designated open space may be used for agriculture, preservation of ecological
resources, habitat corridors, and/or for passive active recreational purposes.
Subd. 5. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation
made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the purpose of owning,
operating and maintaining common open space and/or other commonly owned facilities.
Comment: Some of these definitions may be appropriate to add to Section 825.07, the
definitions section of the Zoning Code.
Section 826.xx. General Development Standards.
Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision.
(a) The minimum land area required for development shall be:
(1)
40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District
(2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts
(b) A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than 40
contiguous acres may apply for approval if they meet all the requirements for CD, plus the
following requirements:
(1) The visual impact of the subdivision from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated by
topography and/or existing vegetation.
(2) The maximum allowed gross density is 1.5 units per 10 acres.
Comment: The minimum size of the subdivision must be large enough to allow for
creative site design that achieves development priorities. There is little additional green
space to be gained from allowing small parcels to be developed at higher densities
compared to current regulations The additional requirements placed on subdivisions of
smaller parcel size should be used to mitigate the visual and environmental impacts.
Subd. 2. Tract Ownership. The tract of land may be held in single or in multiple ownerships.
However, when a tract is held in multiple ownerships, it shall be planned as a single entity with
common authority and common responsibility as demonstrated through all property owners being
signatories on the PUD application.
\\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc
2
Subd. 3. Base Density, Density Incentives, and Calculation of Allowed Number of Dwelling
Units.
(a) The base density shall be that established by regulations in the relevant base zoning district.
(1)
In the Rural Residential District, base density shall be determined by calculating the
amount of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system divided by the
required acreage of the Rural Residential District. This calculation shall be completed
during the "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD
application processing
(2) In sewered residential districts, a yield plan shall be developed during the "initial
planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application
processing to determine the base density. Regulations of the base district and all other
relevant land use regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the yield plan.
(b) Additional density or density incentives may be granted at the discretion of the City Council
based on the conservation priorities identified for the parcel during the "initial planning stage"
(the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing. The total number
of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations
contained in the Comprehensive Plan and shall not be greater than:
(1) 100% of the calculated base density in the Rural Residential District.
(2) 20% of calculated base density in all sewered residential districts.
Comment: The maximum number of dwelling units is a local choice that balances the
city's long term vision as defined in the Comprehensive Plan with an incentive that is
sufficient to encourage landowners/developers to select the conservation design option. A
"percentage" of the base density is used as the incentive framework so as to work with
existing and familiar requirements for determining allowed number of units. The
language shows that the city will be flexible in granting density and that this flexibility is
tied to the project conservation priorities identified during the "initial planning stage"
(the form of this is yet to be determined) of application processing. A "yield plan" is a
plan that shows how many dwelling units can be placed on a tract of land according to
the regulations pertaining to development of that land. It is produced early in the process
to guide design and density discussions. It is more conceptual and does not require the
level of detail of plans submitted during the preliminary plat stage.
Subd 4. Required Open Space.
(a) The required open space within the CD development shall be determined during the "initial
planning stages" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing.
It is the City's intent to preserve open space of:
(1) At least 30% - 50% of the total buildable land area (see definitions) in the Rural
Residential District.
(2) At least 20% of the total buildable land area (see definition) in sewered residential
districts.
\\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc
3
Comment: Defining an open space amount is challenging in an environment with
significant amounts of dispersed wetlands and surface waters. Applying a rigid one size
fits all rule, or requiring too much open space, in this type of landscape may be counter
productive, especially with an incentive based approach.
Since wetlands (and their buffers) are already protected, there is little to be gained (over
existing regulatory requirements) by allowing wetlands in the required open space. For
this reason, required open space is defined as a percentage of "buildable land area"
which excludes wetlands. This approach is considered to be more restrictive than
applying an open space amount to the total parcel area. However, this perceived
"restrictiveness" can be modified by reducing the actual amount required. As such, the
range of required open space is capped at 50%. This amount, however, may still be too
high in this landscape where CD development is to be encouraged.
The city already has lots of open space (as stated by many participants at the 3/23 open
house), so requiring open space for the sake of getting more open space may be
unproductive and difficult to justify to land owners (on top of existing regulations). The
objective is to target the open space in ways that achieve the conservation priorities of
protecting upland ecological resources and views, areas that could otherwise be
developed. This may be achievable through relatively small amounts of "required" open
space, depending on the characteristics and location of each parcel of land. Due to these
site specific variables, flexibility in determining the "required" amount of open space
provides greater opportunities for the city and landowner/developer to both achieve their
individual goals through CD development.
Assessing project goals and methods to achieve them would occur during the proposed
"initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application
processing. The proposed regulatory language communicates what the City's goals are,
but through reference to the goal planning stage and use of an open space range for the
Rural Residential area, the city is indicating its flexibility for considering each project on
its own merits.
For CD developments in urban areas, a 20% minimum is expected. This is considered
the minimum amount needed to protect any existing resources and/or create corridors
that provide differentiation from a conventional suburban subdivision. On some projects,
more open space may be available, but meeting required density minimums and market
demand for saleable lots will effectively limit the amount of open space.
Subd. 5. Priorities for Preserving Open Space.
(a) The total required open space shall be designated and located to incorporate the following areas
listed in order of preservation priority:
(1)
Sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the
2007 Open Space Report (how is this information referenced in the Comp Plan?).
(2) Land connecting these priority areas to create habitat movement corridors.
(3)
Views from roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the 2007
Open Space Report.
\\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 4
Comment: These priorities were identified at the 3/16 meeting of the Council/Planning
Commission and Parks Commission and validated by the participants at the 3/23 open
house. These priorities are also aligned with goals and policies identified in the 2007
Open Space Report and Comprehensive Plan. These priorities are intended to
communicate to landowners and developers what is most important to the city and to
guide discussions during the early planning stage of each CD-PUD application. Applying
these priorities to a specific parcel of land, should inform "initial planning stage" (the
form of this is yet to be determined) discussions on density incentives, the amount of
required open space, and ultimately, the design concept.
Subd. 6. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be
the same as the underlying zoning district.
Section 826.xx. Additional Incentives to Encourage Conservation Design.
The Council may grant additional project flexibility to encourage conservation design.
Subd. 1. Rural Residential Districts. In the Rural Residential District flexibility there is no
minimum lot size or width for CD developments. The structure setback regulations for CD
development may be reduced from the underlying zoning district provided they comply with the
following minimums:
(a) Setback from local streets: 35 feet
(b) Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet
(c) Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet
Subd 2. Sewered Residential Districts. In all sewered residential districts, flexibility from the
requirements of the base zoning district or other requirements of this code may include:
(a) Front yard setback
(b) Minimum lot size
(c) Minimum lot width
(d) Housing type
(e) Landscaping
(f) Screening
(g) Wetland buffers
(h) Tree preservation
Comment: Flexibility in these areas is intended to be an incentive to the developer and
to protect ecological features and achieve other project goals. The idea is to assess each
parcel/project individually and achieve the site design that best achieves overall goals.
This approach requires trade offs on individual objectives or requirements in the
\\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(April 7).doc 5
achievement of the overall best approach. The city may wish to specify ranges of
flexibility on some or all of these elements.
Section 826.xx. Open Space Protection and Ownership.
Subd. 1. Any land and improvements in areas designated as open space in a CD-PUD shall be
established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines:
(a) Designated open space shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate Outlots.
(b) Designated open space must be restricted from further development by a permanent
conservation easement (in accordance with Chapter 84C.01-05 of Minnesota Statutes) running
with the land. The conservation easement must be submitted with the General Plan of
Development and approved by the City Attorney.
(1)
The permanent conservation easement may be held by any combination of the
following entities, but in no case may the holder of the conservation easement be the
same as the owner of the underlying fee:
i. The City of Medina, or other governmental agency
ii. A private nonprofit organization that has been designated by the Internal
Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue
Code.
iii. A common ownership association, which owns open and non -open space land
within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all
property owners in the subdivision shall be mandatory.
(2) The permanent conservation easement must specify:
i. The entity that will maintain the designated open space.
ii. The purposes of the conservation easement and the conservation values of the
property.
iii. The legal description of the land under the easement.
iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development.
v. To what standards the open space will be maintained (reference to an approved
land stewardship plan).
(3)
vi. Who will have access to the open space.
Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated open space parcel, may be held by
any combination of the following entities:
i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD District
ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent
conservation easement;
\\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(April 7).doc
6
iii. The City of Medina or other government agency.
iv. A private nonprofit organization that has been designated by the Internal
Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue
Code.
Comment: The long-term success of a conservation design subdivision lies with
permanently restricted open space. If the restrictions are not permanent, development of
those areas could happen if zoning changes. Conservation easements are a tool that has
been specifically authorized and used in Minnesota to provide for permanent protection
of natural resources. The easement must be held by a separate entity from the underlying
fee. The easement holder is responsible for monitoring the easement parcels to ensure
development does not occur and for enforcing the terms of the easement.
Easements that lie across parcels with different owners are difficult to manage. Open
space parcels should be platted as separate Outlots and held by a single entity, such as
an ownership association.
Section 826.xx. Land Stewardship Plan.
Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated open spaces, a plan for the
development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all open areas or common facilities,
shall be developed. The plan shall:
(a) Define ownership and methods of land protection.
(b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities.
(c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with plan
implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on -going basis.
Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be
submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be
submitted with at the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a narrative
describing:
(a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the
landscape;
(b) Objectives for each open space area, as agreed to during the "initial planning stage" (the form
of this is yet to be determined) including:
(1) The proposed end state for each area.
(2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed end state, including:
i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as erosion.
ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable).
iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types.
\\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(April 7).doc
7
(3)
A maintenance Plan, including:
i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including mowing
and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting schedules, and clearing
and cleanup measures and schedules.
ii. An estimate of the annual on -going (post restoration) operating and maintenance
costs.
Subd. 3. Escrow. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to escrow sufficient
funds for the maintenance and operation costs of common facilities for up to two years.
Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the association established to own and maintain common
areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly maintain all or any
portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City may serve written notice upon such
association setting forth the manner in which the association has failed to maintain the aforesaid
common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the
time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified,
the association, or any successor organization, shall be considered in violation of this Ordinance, in
which case the City shall have the right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective
actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City shall be assessed against the properties that have
the right of enjoyment of the common areas and facilities
Comment: Requiring a Land Stewardship Plan is relatively rare in conservation design
and open space ordinances. The City should consider if this is a potential disincentive
(an additional cost) or if there is value in it.
Section 826.xx. Site Design Process.
At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that the
following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan.
Subd. 1. Step 1 —Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps. First
identify primary conservation or "unbuildable" areas which include: hydric soils, slopes greater
than 18%, wetlands, wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify
secondary conservation areas which include those priority conservation areas identified in Section
826.xx (General Development Standards) Subd. 5. The remaining land shall be identified as the
potentially buildable land area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as
primary conservation areas, secondary conservation areas and potentially buildable land areas.
Subd. 2. Step 2 —Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual houses with
the potentially developable area and include the delineation of common protected open space.
Subd. 3. Step 3 —Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots. New trails
and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create internal and external
connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and trails.
Subd. 4. Step 4 —Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines.
Comment: This is the process developed and promoted by Randall Arendt. It is included
as a requirement during PUD concept plan review. The intention of including this is to
\\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc
8
make the design process visible to the community and to help communicate that the
project design is aligned with and implements the city's conservation priorities. Most
similar regulations do not specify this process to such detail. The City should consider if
there is value in this or if it is outweigh by the cost and time to develop. Being flexible in
allowing variation in this process should be acceptable. The key value is in
communicating where the protected resources are and how their location influences
design, not adherence to specific requirements in each step.
Section 826.xx. Open Space Design Standards.
The following open space design standards shall also be considered in designing the CD-PUD:
Subd. 1. Open space should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a continuous network
of open space land within the PUD and throughout the City. It should coordinate and maximize
boundaries with open space on adjacent tracts.
Subd. 2. Incorporate public trails and/or public open space designated in the comprehensive plan.
Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned by the
city.
Subd. 4. Open space should be distributed throughout the development to serve and enhance as
many dwelling units as possible. At least 75 percent of the lots shall directly abut or face open
space land across a street. Non -adjoining lots shall be provided with convenient access to the open
space through access strips at least 30 feet wide. Access to open space used for agriculture may be
restricted or prohibited for public safety and to prevent interference with agricultural operations.
Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be minimized
by the use of changes in topography, existing vegetation, or additional landscaping. Ridge and
hilltops should be contained within open space areas wherever possible. Trees should not be
removed from ridge and hilltops.
Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated open space areas shall be clearly delineated and labeled on
CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or other measures
approved by the city.
Subd. 7. Park dedication requirements may be reduced or waived with protection of upland
ecological resources as part of the approved designated open space.
Subd. 8. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated open space areas.
Section 826.xx. Landscape Design Standards.
Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing through
common open space.
Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular
spacing may invoke.
Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types identified in
the City's 2008 Natural Resources Inventory.
\\mplsdfs\projects\Mp1s\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(April 7).doc
9
Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance privacy and
a rural appearance between lots.
Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined with
infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low -maintenance, natural landscape.
Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize erosion.
Subd. 7. Mass grading for open space and other common landscaped areas and stormwater
management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water infiltration rates.
Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction activities negatively impact soil
permeability.
Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be used to design
sites and meet the performance standards.
Section 826.xx. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Facilities.
Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to
accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and drainfields located on the lot, or
individual septic tanks located on the lot and drainfields located in the designated open space.
Subd. 2. All septic systems shall conform to the performance standards of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency's standards for sewage treatment systems WPC- 7080 and its appendices, or the
MPCA standards in effect at the time of installation and septic system regulations of the City of
Medina.
Subd. 3. Individual drainfields may be located in an area designated as open space provided that:
(a) The dedicated open space parcel containing the drainfield is owned in fee by a common
ownership association which owns non -open space land within the subdivision and in which
membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision is mandatory.
(b) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the drainfield.
(c) The ground cover over the drainfield is maintained according to the Land Stewardship Plan.
(d) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the drainfields.
(e) The conservation easement for the dedicated open space parcel describes the location of
individual drainfields.
Comment: City regulations governing septic systems and drainfields may need to be
modified to allow the location of individual drainfields in designated open space. Due to
uncertainty of long term operation and maintenance of community drainfields and
concern with the potential of the city being requested to take over such systems in the
future, they were not considered. Allowing individual drainfields within designated open
space allows lot size and site design flexibility as an incentive to developers and to
protect ecological resources.
\\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(April 7).doc 10
Section 826.xx. CD-PUD Application Processing.
To be determined.
\\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(April 7).doc
11
IFK
Medina Planning Commission
Draft March 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
-,,iii
� is ‘,�. /�� t ;
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSIO c
2 �� , .�lr� -, Draft Meeting Minutes
3 ij w" Tuesday,March 9, 2010
4 r k ti
5
6
7
8
9 and Beth Nielsen.
10
11 Absent: Charles Nolan and Kathleen Martin
12
13
14
15 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda:
16
17 No public comments.
18
19 3. Update from City Council Proceedings:
20
21 Weir presented the Council update.
22
23 4. Planning Department Report:
24
25 Finke updated the Commission that the April meeting would be held jointly with the Park
26 Commission to get feedback from both Commissions at the same time to save time. The topic
27 will be the crafting of the Conservation Design Ordinance.
28
29 Finke further updated the Commission that staff is anticipating two small land use applications.
30
31 5. Approval of February 9, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes:
32
33 Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to approve the February 9, 2010 minutes with
34 recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Martin)
35
36 6. Discussion - Implementation of Staging Plan within 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan
37
38 Finke presented the Staging Plan. He asked the Commission if they thought the point system
39 should be set up for only the properties within the 2016-2020 phasing plan looking to jump
40 ahead, or if it should apply to all properties including those available for development today.
41
42 Finke said staff recommended only applying the staging point system plan to properties in the
43 2016-2020 phasing plan looking to jump ahead. He said the City has their general standards and
44 to add the point system to all properties would maybe be too much to require of those that are
45 eligible to develop today.
46
1. Call to Order: Commissioner R. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners, Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, John Anderson, Kent Williams,
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne
1
Medina Planning Commission Draft March 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 V. Reid said her first impression was that it was complicated. She thought it would be important
2 to have a document that is clear as to what applies to an application. She said it would be nice to
3 have a document that helps developers know what the City's expectations are prior to applying.
4 Finke said the Maple Grove point system has worked well for developers since they know what
5 is expected of them. He said the point system could be made more general with what the City's
6 priorities are.
7
8 V. Reid said she put points down on items that she feels are important. She said it isn't like the
9 City has a lot of land to apply the point system to, but thought it seemed like a huge process for
10 the few empty lots that exist in the City.
11
12 Finke said there are quite a few lots the point system could be applied to. He said the City has
13 more land near Loretto in the staging plan.
14
15 Wier asked the Commission if they were familiar with the community survey sent out to
16 residents. She said it may be helpful to take into consideration what was important to the
17 residents when discussing the point system.
18
19 R. Reid asked if the point system required a certain threshold to be approved. Finke said like
20 Maple Grove it doesn't necessarily mean approval.
21
22 R. Reid asked if the light green areas on the Urban Services Phasing Plan have sewer now.
23 Finke said no. She asked what triggered building the sewer. He said there is infrastructure all
24 over and is available. She asked what if it doesn't develop in the orderly pattern as shown on the
25 staging plan. He said it may not develop as shown, but ultimately it is up to the landowners.
26 The City cannot force landowners to develop. He also said the landowner/developer would
27 construct the pipe to their property, not the City.
28
29 Williams asked if the Commission needed to come up with standards for properties to be able to
30 jump forward. Finke said yes, and asked the Commission if the point system should apply to
31 those that are within the developable area already. Anderson said the staging plan should only
32 apply to those that want to jump ahead of the staging plan, not for those currently able to
33 develop.
34
35 Consensus of the Commission was to use the staging point system plan for properties in the
36 2016-2020 Plan wanting to jump ahead. R. Ried said the hurdle should be fairly high to allow a
37 project to jump ahead.
38
39 Finke asked the Commission if anything stood out in the point system that they would want to
40 discuss or bring to his attention. Williams and V. Reid agreed that if infrastructure is not
41 available, properties shouldn't be allowed to develop.
42
43 Anderson said capital improvements required of the City is important to consider. Finke said the
44 City is collecting fees currently. If the City has to accelerate its infrastructure improvements the
45 developer would have to agree to fees.
46
2
Medina Planning Commission Draft March 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 Finke said you can only jump up one phasing period. He asked if someone is only requesting to
2 jump up 6 months rather than 5 years, should the rating of the point system be different or less.
3
4 V. Reid liked preservation of natural features. She said she assumes the City already has
5 standards for a lot of the items on the point system spreadsheet staff prepared. Finke clarified the
6 applicant would have to exceed the existing City requirements.
7
8 Williams asked why it would be important for projects to install fire sprinklers or install quality
9 landscaping when the City already has requirements. Finke clarified the use of fire sprinklers or
10 installing quality landscaping are listed in the comprehensive plan. He said for a development to
11 earn points for quality landscaping would mean that the project exceeds what would otherwise be
12 allowed under a building permit.
13
14 Finke asked the Commission if they would be willing to consider a development if a project
15 already has really good landscaping, was LEED certified..... He asked if that would be enough
16 for an applicant to jump ahead. R. Reid felt that infrastructure should be available. Finke
17 clarified existing user fees do assist in paying for improvements.
18
19 V. Reid said the number of new jobs brought to the City is important to her. Finke said it is
20 really a sustainable measure. The benefit to the City is property taxes paid by the user and the
21 jobs are for the residents.
22
23 Williams asked if on page three of the staff report the language came directly from the
24 comprehensive plan. Finke said yes.
25
26 Williams said the point system is just as subjective as the comprehensive plan objectives.
27
28 Nielsen said guidance is necessary. Finke said staff could work on a narrative. V. Reid said it
29 needs to be clarified what is different from what is already in the City ordinance and what they
30 need to do to go above and beyond.
31
32 R. Reid said staff should bring back to them a draft of the staging point system. Finke said staff
33 could use existing developments as examples. He said he was also bringing the point system
34 spreadsheet to the next City Council meeting for them to rate.
35
36 Finke asked for clarification if the point system would only be used for a project to jump ahead.
37 R Reid said it should be designed to make it very difficult for someone to develop early.
38 Williams said he felt it depended on how many years an applicant wanted to jump ahead.
39 V. Reid said it would depend on the extraordinary benefit they are proposing. R. Reid
40 recommended a project would get more points if it reached a certain threshold.
41
42 Mike Leuer @ 1522 Medina Road explained to the Commission that when he purchased his
43 property five years ago it was developable at that time. Since that time the City has changed the
44 regulations and the staging plan put his property into the 2016 plan rather than being allowed to
45 develop today. He questioned why he would have to go through the point system to develop. He
3
Medina Planning Commission Draft March 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 questioned why it's such a big deal to develop going east -west. He said going through a point
2 system appears to have a lot of unknowns and asked for it to not be required.
3
4 Leuer told the Commission they should understand why he is frustrated. R. Reid asked if his
5 property was within the business park zoning district. Nielsen clarified it's the comprehensive
6 plan that restricts his property. Finke said yes.
7
8 Williams asked Leuer if he would prefer to see the point system more generalized or more
9 specific. Leuer responded by saying more general. Nielsen asked Leuer if he brought his
10 concerns to the City during the comprehensive plan review process. Leuer said he raised his
11 concerns to the City Council.
12
13 Bob Kohns, Real Estate Broker for Leuer, felt the proposed point system gives power to City
14 staff to determine if a project should go to the Planning Commission. He felt the proposed
15 system promotes City staff as the gate keepers, and the City Council should be the one to
16 maintain the power of who can and cannot develop. He said the City Council now has the power
17 and he would like for it to continue that way. He added Maple Grove's staging plan was
18 disbanded and they rely on the use of Planned Unit Developments. He also stated that Medina's
19 properties are more unique than Maple Grove's. Finke said staff would not hold back an
20 application from the Commission if they didn't make the required number of points.
21
22 Kohns asked the Commission to open their arms to developers. He said he prefers more clarity
23 rather than general requirements for the design of the point system. Williams said the
24 Commission can establish very general or a very detailed set of requirements. Williams asked
25 Kohn which he preferred. Kohn said it's better to be black and white.
26
27 Kohn said he'd prefer more flexibility for the Council. He said the staging plan should not have
28 been approved, but since it has to be done, he'd rather have the point system be a small piece of
29 the approval process.
30
31 Nielsen asked why the staging plan was established. Weir said to "promote orderly and compact
32 growth in the City's urban areas, and the east -west growth pattern was in place so properties
33 would develop efficient infrastructure, including sewer and water."
34
35 Williams said he would prefer the point system to be as simple and general as possible. V. Reid
36 suggested commercial properties have fewer requirements than residential properties if they want
37 to jump ahead. Anderson said the commercial and residential attributes are different. Finke
38 asked the Commission if they were looking for a simpler point system for commercial. The
39 Commission said yes.
40
41 Finke said he liked the recommendation of the Commission to rate the point system with a
42 maximum number of points. He said he would have the City Council rate the point system with
43 a maximum number of points to more easily identify what is priority.
44
45
46
4
Medina Planning Commission Draft March 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 7. Call Special Concurrent Meetin2 with City Council for March 16, 2010 at 5:30 p.m.
2
3 Motion by Williams, seconded by Anderson to call a special concurrent meeting with the City
4 Council for March 16, 2010. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Martin)
5
6
7 8. City Council Meetin2 Schedule: Discussion of representation at Council meeting.
8
9
10 9. Adiourn: Motion by Anderson, seconded by Williams to adjourn at 8:46 p.m. Motion
11 carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Martin)
12
5
Medina Planning Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
0
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
2 Draft Meeting Minutes
3 Tuesday, April 13, 2010
4
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, John Anderson, Kathleen Martin, Kent
9 Williams, and Beth Nielsen.
10
11 Absent: Robin Reid
12
13 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne
14
15 2. Public Hearing — Open Systems International (OSI) — Northwest corner of Arrowhead
16 Drive and State Highway 55 (PID 03-118-23-44-0001) — Amendment of previously
17 approved Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to increase the building size from
18 92,000 square feet to 100,400 square feet.
19
20 Finke provided a brief presentation of the changes from the previous CUP application approval.
21
22 OSI representative gave a brief project overview.
23
24 Anderson asked if the size of the building was large enough. Ed Fitzpatrick, OSI representative
25 said the increased square footage meets their expectations for size and would not expand the
26 building beyond the new proposed square footage. He said if they need additional space they
27 would construct another building on a separate lot.
28
29 Finke said the site plan did change significantly in that the applicant is purchasing wetland
30 credits off -site which would reduce the amount of on -site grading needed. He further explained
31 how the exterior materials changed with increased brick as suggested by Commission during the
32 initial CUP.
33
34 The Public Hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m.
35 The Public Hearing was Closed at 9:26 p.m.
36
37 Williams said the modifications made a good plan even better. Nolan said he was not able to be
38 at the original meeting for approval and he embraces staff's idea of the trees along the north
39 boundary. He recommended the trees be placed closer to the building. Fitzpatrick said they
40 were willing to increase the caliper of the trees rather than move them closer to the building
41 since moving trees closer to the building causes the roots to get too close to the building and the
42 trees block fire accessibility.
43
44 Fitzpatrick said they understand the screening requirements and they are committed to providing
45 additional screening based on what develops to the north. He asked for the ability to work with
46 staff to finalize the plan. Nolan said he respects that OSI didn't want trees next to building.
1
v-)
Medina Planning Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1
2 Nolan further raised concern with loading docks being visible from state hwy 55 and residential
3 homes. He recommended a wing wall be built on the corner of the building to screen.
4 Fitzpatrick said they intended to bring a small 2-4 foot wing wall extension and that they would
5 not have trucks parked over night and would never support adding trucks to be parked in this
6 area. He noted the loading dock area is proposed to be submerged four feet below the grade.
7
8 Nolan said he still recommended screening the loading dock area since it would improve
9 aesthetics and shouldn't cost more than $10,000 to construct.
10
11 V. Reid said she drives by the property every day and does not have an issue with the originally
12 approved plan nor the proposed plan.
13
14 Williams asked Nolan if it would help to extend the trees around that area rather than expanding
15 the wall. Nolan said the east side of the building is the most visible from state highway 55 and a
16 screen wall would be the best solution.
17
18 OSI representative said they wouldn't ever own tractor trailers, they hire local hauling companies
19 to make their deliveries.
20
21 V. Reid commented that by re esting this t
22 sine y rP.,, c1y ap ved ading dock ar- .. s.
23
24 Weir commented that the land to the east would develop some time in the future which could
25 screen the loading area being discussed.
26
27 Nolan suggested rearranging landscaping to better screen the area rather than a wall extension.
28
29 Williams said their may be other ways to screen the area and would be open to suggestions.
30
31 Nielsen said she disagrees with requiring the new screen wall for the loading dock area since this
32 area of the building was already previously acceptable to the commission.
33
34 Motion by Nielsen, seconded by V. Reid to approve the CUP Amendment with staffs
35 recommended conditions. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
36
37
38 3. Planning Department Report
39
40 Finke updated the Commission.
41
42
43 4. Approval of March 9, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes:
44
45 Motion by Williams, seconded by Nielsen to approve the March 9, 2010 minutes as written.
46 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
47
Vim_
age was tr < ' g the applicant unfairly wf
e-._ ti'
Medina Planning Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 5. Approval of March 16, 2010 minutes of concurrent meeting with the City Council:
2
3 Motion by Williams, seconded by V. Reid to approve the March 16, 2010 minutes as written.
4 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
5
6 6. Discussion — Rescheduling of August 10th meeting date
7
8 Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to move the Tuesday August 10, 2010 Planning
9 Commission meeting date to Wednesday August 11, 2010. Motion carried unanimously.
10 (Absent: R. Reid)
11
12 7. City Council Meeting Schedule: Discussion of representation at Council meeting.
13
14
15 8. Adiourn: Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Anderson to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Motion
16 carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
17
3
Medina Planning Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
2 Draft Meeting Minutes
3 Tuesday, April 13, 2010
4
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, John Anderson, Kathleen Martin, Kent
9 Williams, and Beth Nielsen.
10
11 Absent: Robin Reid
12
13 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne
14
15 2. Public Hearing — Open Systems International (OSI) — Northwest corner of Arrowhead
16 Drive and State Highway 55 (PID 03-118-23-44-0001) — Amendment of previously
17 approved Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to increase the building size from
18 92,000 square feet to 100,400 square feet.
19
20 Finke provided a brief presentation of the changes from the previous CUP application approval.
21
22 OSI representative gave a brief project overview.
23
24 Anderson asked if the size of the building was large enough. Ed Fitzpatrick, OSI representative
25 said the increased square footage meets their expectations for size and would not expand the
26 building beyond the new proposed square footage. He said if they need additional space they
27 would construct another building on a separate lot.
28
29 Finke said the site plan did change significantly in that the applicant is purchasing wetland
30 credits off -site which would reduce the amount of on -site grading needed. He further explained
31 how the exterior materials changed with increased brick as suggested by Commission during the
32 initial CUP.
33
34 The Public Hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m.
35 The Public Hearing was Closed at 9:26 p.m.
36
37 Williams said the modifications made a good plan even better. Nolan said he was not able to be
38 at the original meeting for approval and he embraces staff's idea of the trees along the north
39 boundary. He recommended the trees be placed closer to the building. Fitzpatrick said they
40 were willing to increase the caliper of the trees rather than move them closer to the building
41 since moving trees closer to the building causes the roots to get too close to the building and the
42 trees block fire accessibility.
43
44 Fitzpatrick said they understand the screening requirements and they are committed to providing
45 additional screening based on what develops to the north. He asked for the ability to work with
46 staff to finalize the plan. Nolan said he respects that OSI didn't want trees next to building.
1
Medina Planning Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1
2 Nolan further raised concern with loading docks being visible from state hwy 55 and residential
3 homes. He recommended a wing wall be built on the corner of the building to screen.
4 Fitzpatrick said they intended to bring a small 2-4 foot wing wall extension and that they would
5 not have trucks parked over night and would never support adding trucks to be parked in this
6 area. He noted the loading dock area is proposed to be submerged four feet below the grade.
7
8 Nolan said he still recommended screening the loading dock area since it would improve
9 aesthetics and shouldn't cost more than $10,000 to construct.
10
11 V. Reid said she drives by the property every day and does not have an issue with the originally
12 approved plan nor the proposed plan.
13
14 Williams asked Nolan if it would help to extend the trees around that area rather than expanding
15 the wall. Nolan said the east side of the building is the most visible from state highway 55 and a
16 screen wall would be the best solution.
17
18 OSI representative said they wouldn't ever own tractor trailers, they hire local hauling companies
19 to make their deliveries. r A
20 ui$ (01,1111W4 n OA c"1 �s cfreAil
21 V. Reid commented that b requ6sting this type of change was treating the applicaift unfairly
22 since the city previously approved the loading dock area as is. pitt.(r 5t app'C1 f�Lt
23
24 Weir commented that the land to the east would develop some time in the future which could
25 screen the loading area being discussed.
26
27 Nolan suggested rearranging landscaping to better screen the area rather than a wall extension.
28
29 Williams said their may be other ways to screen the area and would be open to suggestions.
30
31 Nielsen said she disagrees with requiring the new screen wall for the loading dock area since this
32 area of the building was already previously acceptable to the commission.
33
34 Motion by Nielsen, seconded by V. Reid to approve the CUP Amendment with staffs
35 recommended conditions. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
36
37
38 3. Planning Department Report
39
40 Finke updated the Commission.
41
42
43 4. Approval of March 9, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes:
44
45 Motion by Williams, seconded by Nielsen to approve the March 9, 2010 minutes as written.
46 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
47
2
Medina Planning Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 5. Approval of March 16, 2010 minutes of concurrent meeting with the City Council:
2
3 Motion by Williams, seconded by V. Reid to approve the March 16, 2010 minutes as written.
4 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
5
6 6. Discussion — Rescheduling of August 10th meeting date
7
8 Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to move the Tuesday August 10, 2010 Planning
9 Commission meeting date to Wednesday August 11, 2010. Motion carried unanimously.
10 (Absent: R. Reid)
11
12 7. City Council Meeting Schedule: Discussion of representation at Council meeting.
13
14
15 8. Adiourn: Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Anderson to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Motion
16 carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
17
3
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
'701 / CITY OF MEDINA
CONCURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION
& PARK COMMISSION
Draft Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
1. Call to Order: Planning Commissioner Chair, Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, John Anderson, Kent Williams, Beth Nielsen,
Charles Nolan and Kathleen Martin.
Park Commissioners Ben Benson, Madeleine Linck, Bill Waytas, Janet White and Ann Thies.
Absent: Planning Commissioner Robin Reid and Park Commissioners Paul Jaeb and Chris
Hilberg.
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne, and City
Planning Consultant Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering Company.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda:
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings:
Weir presented the Council update.
4. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of Medina's City Code pertaining
to the creation of regulations for Conservation Design and Open Space Protection.
Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering reviewed the conservation design ordinance, highlighting:
• How the overall plan would integrate resources within the community and to meet goals
of the community
• How it would assist in maintaining land values
• Protection of natural resources in exchange for increased density
• The ordinance utilizes the underlying zoning districts to determine density
• How it would be utilized by offering incentives as a voluntary program
• Anticipated schedule of ordinance approval
• Ordinance flexibility and incentives in exchange for increased density.
• The overall approach would be through an overlay district and implemented under a
planned unit development which could be established as a CD-PUD
• 40 acre minimum development size in rural areas and 20 acre minimum in sewered areas
with different design standards and incentives for each
1
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
• Base density was explained
Williams asked if a 40 acre parcel currently allows a maximum of four buildable lots, would the
proposed ordinance allow eight. He asked what the limitation was on how it could be configured
and asked if the eight houses could be condensed into a corner of the 40 acres. He further asked
if there would be a minimum lot size requirement. Petrik explained the comprehensive plan
doesn't have specific minimum lot sizes or lot widths identified. He said the developer would
have complete flexibility with the lot sizes and widths as long as septic requirements could be
met. Williams asked if the five contiguous acres was related to septic requirements. Weir
clarified it is a way of controlling lot sizes and keeping them large. She further said the Met
Council intends after 2030 before density increases too much to sewer the entire southern portion
of Medina (Minnehaha Creek Watershed). She said the Met Council wants to keep the average
density to no more than one unit per 10 acres, because if we had greater density it would be
harder for them to sewer the area in the future.
The commission then discussed the cost to provide infrastructure for developments proposed that
are clustered. Benson said he thought it would be difficult for a developer to get density
increased by 100 percent because of all the wetlands and terrain in the community. He said a
developer's infrastructure costs would be down by clustering, but density would be closer to 50
percent increases rather than the full 100 percent.
Petrik reviewed other incentives that he wanted the commission to discuss such as lot size, lot
width, setbacks, housing types, landscaping, and screening. He clarified what buildable areas
meant by subtracting areas such as wetlands, lakes, hydric soils, slopes over 18%, requiring
wetland buffers, and the 100 -year flood plain. He said the idea is to provide a range of flexibility
for developers.
Petrik reviewed the City's top priorities such as sensitive ecological resources, views from vistas,
and habitat corridors. He then explained the optional elements such as the land stewardship plan
and how it involved a four -step process. He explained the current process for a land use project
can be two to three steps and implementing this program would create a fourth step towards
approval if a developer wanted to increase density. He said that the program would initially
determine if there would be ecological resources that would want to be preserved in exchange for
the increased density.
The commission discussed sewage treatment within developments that may have clustered
housing with smaller lots and how the ordinance would allow flexibility by possibly allowing
drain fields in the conservation open space easement areas, but the actual tanks would always be
required to be installed on each individual lot. Petrik explained the ordinance may require
revisions to allow the drain fields within the easement areas.
Petrik explained the Collaboration and Traditional processes of the ordinance. Thies said she
worked with conservation design easements and said she is very familiar with many of them in
Lake Elmo.
2
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April' 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Linck asked if there was a property with 150 acres and was used only for cropland and wasn't
that great of property to preserve, if they would be eligible for increased density. Petrik said
increased density would only be increased for properties that provide some natural resource to
preserve, but if a property in the past had a natural prairie or woodland that was worth restoring
back to its natural state, the developer could increase their density. Petrik said the natural
resources around a proposed property to be developed would always be taken into consideration.
Thies said Wild Meadows was a good example of a conservation design with a conservation
easement.
Anderson asked why and how the acreage was decided as 20 acres for sewered properties and 40
acres for rural properties. Petrik explained a larger parcel is necessary in order to capture
protection of ecological resources.
V. Reid asked if the Met Council could bring infrastructure into the conservation easement areas.
Thies clarified it would be difficult for the Met Council to do and typically they won't.
V. Reid asked if a conservation design easement could be converted to an agricultural use.
Petrik explained the commission would have discretion through the process of designing the
ordinance, what the conservation easement could be used for, and have it defined and written
into the easement.
V. Reid said she is concerned with trails that don't connect to a city wide system and would like
to make sure it is a goal to require trails to connect or be part of an overall plan to connect as part
of the ordinance. She said she didn't see trails as part of a conservation easement, but rather a by
product. She asked if it could be stated in the ordinance that trails be required to connect to other
trails.
Thies said the commission should discuss and require the use of stewardship fees. She said the
money should be required to be put into a fund to manage the property. She also felt that
reducing the amount of homes that back up to the open space is better, since it is the homes that
back up to the open space that creates issues such as dumping and mowing into the open space
areas and is difficult to monitor.
The commission discussed examples of 40 acre corn fields with no natural resource benefits to
the City. Petrik explained the City doesn't have to allow benefits to a developer if the property
doesn't have any ecological benefits to preserve.
Martin asked for clarification of the joint steering committee meetings and suggested staff
discusses the meeting laws with the city attorney. She further suggested adding language under
the purpose statement that the development should enhance what would otherwise have been
allowed.
Nolan asked about the role of the steering committee and if it's a way to give the applicant
assurance from the City. He raised concern with the creation of the committee and how it would
give certain amount of authority or control over what would be suggested to an
3
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
applicant/developer; and if the right people wgren't desi na ed the developer could run into
problems. L,,r Gin.
Petrik explained the steering committee process and how it has been used in the City of Hanover.
The commissioners discussed the process of the future steering committee and discussed their
concern of feeling some sort of obligation to the developer if they were part of the steering
committee.
V. Reid asked staff if they had looked nation wide at other communities. Petrik said he knows
other states have these types of open space ordinances and communities from lectures he's
attended, but wasn't sure where they were developed beyond the state of Minnesota.
Nolan asked for historical data on how density standards had been established. He asked how
often in the elective process would it be utilized and why would the City want to do it with the
possibility of such high density numbers. He further asked if the City had to allow such a high
percentage of increased density. He understands the use of clustering, but was unsure why the
City would want to double the density. He questioned whether the City would be going forward
or backwards; and therefore needed some historical background to better understand.
Petrik said Lake Elmo allows up to 200% density incentives, which worked well for them to get
the development they wanted. Their incentive was to protect key views and not allow housing to
be visible from roadways.
Petrik said other communities range from 100-200% increased density incentives. He said Hugo
developed three projects prior to eliminating the conservation design and open space protection
area ordinance to gain density. The community was satisfied with the ordinance, but eliminated
it sinc - et Council thought the City was developing with too high of a density than they
liked. Other cities 6-7 Lino Lakes did two pro ams and felt it wasn't very effective and didn't
have very m. • ' tives. f/
Nolan asked why not make it a mandatory program and get 100 percent participation and
establish some sort of environmental value. Petrik said all the communities, except Hanover are
voluntary. Nolan asked why not make it mandatory for participation. Benson asked if it was a
goal of the City to have the program be mandatory. He said he likes the idea for some
developments, but doesn't think that all properties need to be the same. He thinks the City has
done a good job with current rural standards, but does not think the open space program would
apply to all properties. He said we may find a few developers who would go through the process
and can think of one property in particular that would be beneficial to be developed under the
program. Nolan said he had not taken a position on the issue, but rather is gathering information
to make an informative decision.
Petrik said the program is voluntary as referenced in the comprehensive plan. He said if it was
made mandatory it would go against the comprehensive plan and residents would question why
the City wasn't following their comprehensive plan. He suggested that if the commissioners felt
strongly about one or two properties in particular they could be identified as an area that should
4
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
go through the process. He said he would be concerned with the political fall -out of making the
ordinance mandatory.
Nolan asked what percentage of Medina qualifies to develop under the conservation ordinance.
Weir asked if staff had looked at the 20 and 40 acre parcels to evaluate which properties possibly
qualified. Finke said they had discussed putting together a map of the parcels, but hadn't
completed one. The commission requested staff to prepare a map for the next concurrent
meeting so they could make further recommendations.
Nolan asked within the higher density and the lower density is there higher participation in one
or the other. Petrik said the density incentive would have higher value in the rural areas than
other market s andards would have more market value in the sewered areas.
The public hearing was opened at 8:42 p.m.
Martha Van de Ven, 1765 Medina Road, thanked the commission for all the good questions they
had pertaining to the proposed ordinance and said she really appreciated it. She said she has a
question dealing with the exception to the 40 acres in the rural residential district areas. She
asked for clarification of the regulation on page two subdivision 1.(b). Petrik said he thought it
would be a good idea to provide some flexibility in the event someone could prove their project
wouldn't visually impair visibility and protect resources. He said they want to allow some
flexibility but also provide an incentive, and that is why density is being recommended to be able
to increase either 2 or 1.5 percent dependant on zoning. He said it is all discretionary. Van de
Van raised concern with property being able to develop beyond the five contiguous suitable soil
acre requirements today if the site had wetlands.
Williams asked Van de Ven what her concern was. Van de Ven said she is concerned with
doubling the density and was also concerned with law suits from builders being allowed this kind
of discretion.
Petrik said if the 40 acre minimum requirement is unlikely to be used; maybe the regulation
should be taken out.
Susan Seeland, owner of a 200 acre farm near County Road 6 and Homestead Trail said she
thought it looked like the City has given the ordinance a lot of thought and asked the
commissioners to really think about what their goal was. She said if it is to prevent sewer hook-
ups then keeping the acreage at 40 acres probably wouldn't work and they may want to think
about reducing the minimum size requirement. She asked for the definition of hydric soils and
what the goal relating to soils really is. Petrik explained the different soil classifications. Seeland
asked the commissioners to consider community wastewater technology, since requiring
everyone to have their own septic would be impeding the ability to develop.
Nolan asked for pros and cons to community sewer developments. Petrik suggested if the
commissioners were interested in this type of community, the City should bring in experts and
examples so the commissioners could understand this type of development.
5
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Seeland asked about establishing 50% into conservation easements. She asked the
commissioners to think about how it should be designed since there are open space areas where
you want people to come to and it benefits the community and other open space areas that may
be better left private.
Public hearing closed at 8:54p.m.
Thies asked what the goal was of staff for a motion. Finke explained the reason for a concurrent
meeting.
Carolyn Smith explained the reason for the opportunity for the park commission to be part of the
ordinance and that it wasn't just about creating trails within the open spaces areas.
Nolan asked Thies for her opinion on the negatives of conservation design easements. She
explained they are not just blanket plans and there are so many different ways to set them up, and
how open space could be used. She said there are a number of issues when homes back up to
open space areas, since over time the properties that back up to the open space areas start to
dump and mow into these areas.
The Park Commission - Motion by Janet White, seconded by Ann Thies, to approve
continuance of the public hearing to the May 11, 2010 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Absent: (Paul Jaeb and Chris Hilberg)
Nolan recommended a small steering committee for the program. He said he was interested in
knowing more about what properties qualify, particularly how many 20 and 40 acres are existing
out there today.
V. Reid asked about parcels joining together. Finke explained that the mapping plan they would
put together would not be able to anticipate smaller acreage parcels getting put together. V. Reid
said she also wanted to know the positive and negatives of community systems.
Nolan commented on the general approach of the process and raised concern with how a
commissioner would gauge what they were allowing with such arbitrary regulations. He said he
would be concerned with setting a pattern and then someone new comes in and pushes the
envelope and suddenly a much higher precedence is set. He questioned how these things would
get measured. He asked what the measuring stick is, and what the City is really giving up.
Anderson asked if the process puts into question the need for a specific ordinance rather than
flexibility. Weir said she didn't think there was' port for mandating „t
Finke suggested the commission consider looking at a sketch in an informal meeting instead of a
creating a steering committee.
Nielsen explained how her job involved collaborative process and how they turn out a better
product. She said she supported the steering committee process.
Weir said she is in support of the collaborative process.
6
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Williams said he didn't have an issue with
on a steering committee, but would have more of an issue with representing other planning
commissioners.
Conclusion of discussion was:
• Density incentives — staff would create mapping with acreage parcels
• Open space ranges — the commission said their focus wasn't on the quantity, but rather
the quality of areas preserved
• Optional elements — the commission wanted to know more about how open space would
be arrived at, and how it would be preserved by utilizing the four step process. The
developer would need to show proof as to what they were thinking in the early stages of
design for a development project.
• Stewardship plan was also part of it.
• Sewage treatment — pros and cons of a community sewage
• Collaboration process — requested staff to look at sewered community's nation wide.
• Other incentives — pg 5 of the ordinance
• Rural residential districts suggest no minimum lot sizes and the commission suggested
flexibility of lot size and width (may be reduced language).
• Sewered Residential — flexibility as it applies to platted lots. Finke said there are some
people concerned with wetland buffers and tree areas.
Motion to continue public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission - Motion to reopen and continue the public hearing at the May
11, 2010 meeting by V. Reid, seconded by Anderson. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent:
R. Reid)
5. Adiourn: Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
7
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
CITY OF MEDINA
CONCURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION
& PARK COMMISSION
Draft Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
1. Call to Order: Planning Commissioner Chair, Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, John Anderson, Kent Williams, Beth Nielsen,
Charles Nolan and Kathleen Martin.
Park Commissioners Ben Benson, Madeleine Linck, Bill Waytas, Janet White and Ann Thies.
Absent: Planning Commissioner Robin Reid and Park Commissioners Paul Jaeb and Chris
Hilberg.
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne, and City
Planning Consultant Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering Company.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda:
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings:
Weir presented the Council update.
4. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of Medina's City Code pertaining
to the creation of regulations for Conservation Design and Open Space Protection.
Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering reviewed the conservation design ordinance, highlighting:
• How the overall plan would integrate resources within the community and to meet goals
of the community
• How it would assist in maintaining land values
• Protection of natural resources in exchange for increased density
• The ordinance utilizes the underlying zoning districts to determine density
• How it would be utilized by offering incentives as a voluntary program
• Anticipated schedule of ordinance approval
• Ordinance flexibility and incentives in exchange for increased density.
• The overall approach would be through an overlay district and implemented under a
planned unit development which could be established as a CD-PUD
• 40 acre minimum development size in rural areas and 20 acre minimum in sewered areas
with different design standards and incentives for each
1
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
• Base density was explained
Williams asked if a 40 acre parcel currently allows a maximum of four buildable lots, would the
proposed ordinance allow eight. He asked what the limitation was on how it could be configured
and asked if the eight houses could be condensed into a corner of the 40 acres. He further asked
if there would be a minimum lot size requirement. Petrik explained the comprehensive plan
doesn't have specific minimum lot sizes or lot widths identified. He said the developer would
have complete flexibility with the lot sizes and widths as long as septic requirements could be
met. Williams asked if the five contiguous acres was related to septic requirements. Weir
clarified it is a way of controlling lot sizes and keeping them large. She further said the Met
Council intends after 2030 before density increases too much to sewer the entire southern portion
of Medina (Minnehaha Creek Watershed). She said the Met Council wants to keep the average
density to no more than one unit per 10 acres, because if we had greater density it would be
harder for them to sewer the area in the future.
The commission then discussed the cost to provide infrastructure for developments proposed that
are clustered. Benson said he thought it would be difficult for a developer to get density
increased by 100 percent because of all the wetlands and terrain in the community. He said a
developer's infrastructure costs would be down by clustering, but density would be closer to 50
percent increases rather than the full 100 percent.
Petrik reviewed other incentives that he wanted the commission to discuss such as lot size, lot
width, setbacks, housing types, landscaping, and screening. He clarified what buildable areas
meant by subtracting areas such as wetlands, lakes, hydric soils, slopes over 18%, requiring
wetland buffers, and the 100 -year flood plain. He said the idea is to provide a range of flexibility
for developers.
Petrik reviewed the City's top priorities such as sensitive ecological resources, views from vistas,
and habitat corridors. He then explained the optional elements such as the land stewardship plan
and how it involved a four -step process. He explained the current process for a land use project
can be two to three steps and implementing this program would create a fourth step towards
approval if a developer wanted to increase density. He said that the program would initially
determine if there would be ecological resources that would want to be preserved in exchange for
the increased density.
The commission discussed sewage treatment within developments that may have clustered
housing with smaller lots and how the ordinance would allow flexibility by possibly allowing
drain fields in the conservation open space easement areas, but the actual tanks would always be
required to be installed on each individual lot. Petrik explained the ordinance may require
revisions to allow the drain fields within the easement areas.
Petrik explained the Collaboration and Traditional processes of the ordinance. Thies said she
worked with conservation design easements and said she is very familiar with many of them in
Lake Elmo.
2
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Linck asked if there was a property with 150 acres and was used only for cropland and wasn't
that great of property to preserve, if they would be eligible for increased density. Petrik said
increased density would only be increased for properties that provide some natural resource to
preserve, but if a property in the past had a natural prairie or woodland that was worth restoring
back to its natural state, the developer could increase their density. Petrik said the natural
resources around a proposed property to be developed would always be taken into consideration.
Thies said Wild Meadows was a good example of a conservation design with a conservation
easement.
Anderson asked why and how the acreage was decided as 20 acres for sewered properties and 40
acres for rural properties. Petrik explained a larger parcel is necessary in order to capture
protection of ecological resources.
V. Reid asked if the Met Council could bring infrastructure into the conservation easement areas.
Thies clarified it would be difficult for the Met Council to do and typically they won't.
V. Reid asked if a conservation design easement could be converted to an agricultural use.
Petrik explained the commission would have discretion through the process of designing the
ordinance, what the conservation easement could be used for, and have it defined and written
into the easement.
V. Reid said she is concerned with trails that don't connect to a city wide system and would like
to make sure it is a goal to require trails to connect or be part of an overall plan to connect as part
of the ordinance. She said she didn't see trails as part of a conservation easement, but rather a by
product. She asked if it could be stated in the ordinance that trails be required to connect to other
trails.
Thies said the commission should discuss and require the use of stewardship fees. She said the
money should be required to be put into a fund to manage the property. She also felt that
reducing the amount of homes that back up to the open space is better, since it is the homes that
back up to the open space that creates issues such as dumping and mowing into the open space
areas and is difficult to monitor.
The commission discussed examples of 40 acre corn fields with no natural resource benefits to
the City. Petrik explained the City doesn't have to allow benefits to a developer if the property
doesn't have any ecological benefits to preserve.
Martin asked for clarification of the joint steering committee meetings and suggested staff
discusses the meeting laws with the city attorney. She further suggested adding language under
the purpose statement that the development should enhance what would otherwise have been
allowed.
Nolan asked about the role of the steering committee and if it's a way to give the applicant
assurance from the City. He raised concern with the creation of the committee and how it would
give certain amount of authority or control over what would be suggested to an
`,—)
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
applicant/developer; and if the right people weren't designated, the developer could run into
problems.
Petrik explained the steering committee process and how it has been used in the City of Hanover.
The commissioners discussed the process of the future steering committee and discussed their
concern of feeling some sort of obligation to the developer if they were part of the steering
committee.
V. Reid asked staff if they had looked nation wide at other communities. Petrik said he knows
other states have these types of open space ordinances and communities from lectures he's
attended, but wasn't sure where they were developed beyond the state of Minnesota.
Nolan asked for historical data on how density standards had been established. He asked how
often in the elective process would it be utilized and why would the City want to do it with the
possibility of such high density numbers. He further asked if the City had to allow such a high
percentage of increased density. He understands the use of clustering, but was unsure why the
City would want to double the density. He questioned whether the City would be going forward
or backwards; and therefore needed some historical background to better understand.
Petrik said Lake Elmo allows up to 200% density incentives, which worked well for them to get
the development they wanted. Their incentive was to protect key views and not allow housing to
be visible from roadways.
Petrik said other communities range from 100-200% increased density incentives. He said Hugo
developed three projects prior to eliminating the conservation design and open space protection
area ordinance to gain density. The community was satisfied with the ordinance, but eliminated
it since the Met Co
have very man"' ce 1 es.
it thought the City was developing with too high of a density than they
ino Lakes did two programs. and felt it wasn't very effective and didn't
F cos
Nolan asked why not make it a mandatory program and get 100 percent participation and
establish some sort of environmental value. Petrik said all the communities, except Hanover are
voluntary. Nolan asked why not make it mandatory for participation. Benson asked if it was a
goal of the City to have the program be mandatory. He said he likes the idea for some
developments, but doesn't think that all properties need to be the same. He thinks the City has
done a good job with current rural standards, but does not think the open space program would
apply to all properties. He said we may find a few developers who would go through the process
and can think of one property in particular that would be beneficial to be developed under the
program. Nolan said he had not taken a position on the issue, but rather is gathering information
to make an informative decision.
Petrik said the program is voluntary as referenced in the comprehensive plan. He said if it was
made mandatory it would go against the comprehensive plan and residents would question why
the City wasn't following their comprehensive plan. He suggested that if the commissioners felt
strongly about one or two properties in particular they could be identified as an area that should
4
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
go through the process. He said he would be concerned with the political fall -out of making the
ordinance mandatory.
Nolan asked what percentage of Medina qualifies to develop under the conservation ordinance.
Weir asked if staff had looked at the 20 and 40 acre parcels to evaluate which properties possibly
qualified. Finke said they had discussed putting together a map of the parcels, but hadn't
completed one. The commission requested staff to prepare a map for the next concurrent
meeting so they could make further recommendations.
or the other. Petrik said the density incentive wou
Nolan asked within the higher density and the lower density is there higher participation in one
ve higher value in the rural areas than
other market ould have more marke va u in the sewered areas. e, { ar-ectS
t l crc Yw1 .a c_� Yv z.� r`',
The public hearing was opened at 8:42 p.m. I n Tl J n+- se + t. ckC., 1c. 5
Martha Van de Ven, 1765 Medina Road, thanked the commission for all the good questions they
had pertaining to the proposed ordinance and said she really appreciated it. She said she has a
question dealing with the exception to the 40 acres in the rural residential district areas. She
asked for clarification of the regulation on page two subdivision 1.(b). Petrik said he thought it
would be a good idea to provide some flexibility in the event someone could prove their project
wouldn't visually impair visibility and protect resources. He said they want to allow some
flexibility but also provide an incentive, and that is why density is being recommended to be able
to increase either 2 or 1.5 percent dependant on zoning. He said it is all discretionary. Van de
Van raised concern with property being able to develop beyond the five contiguous suitable soil
acre requirements today if the site had wetlands.
Williams asked Van de Ven what her concern was. Van de Ven said she is concerned with
doubling the density and was also concerned with law suits from builders being allowed this kind
of discretion.
Petrik said if the 40 acre minimum requirement is unlikely to be used; maybe the regulation
should be taken out.
Susan Seeland, owner of a 200 acre farm near County Road 6 and Homestead Trail said she
thought it looked like the City has given the ordinance a lot of thought and asked the
commissioners to really think about what their goal was. She said if it is to prevent sewer hook-
ups then keeping the acreage at 40 acres probably wouldn't work and they may want to think
about reducing the minimum size requirement. She asked for the definition of hydric soils and
what the goal relating to soils really is. Petrik explained the different soil classifications. Seeland
asked the commissioners to consider community wastewater technology, since requiring
everyone to have their own septic would be impeding the ability to develop.
Nolan asked for pros and cons to community sewer developments. Petrik suggested if the
commissioners were interested in this type of community, the City should bring in experts and
examples so the commissioners could understand this type of development.
5
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Seeland asked about establishing 50% into conservation easements. She asked the
commissioners to think about how it should be designed since there are open space areas where
you want people to come to and it benefits the community and other open space areas that may
be better left private.
Public hearing closed at 8:54p.m.
Thies asked what the goal was of staff for a motion. Finke explained the reason for a concurrent
meeting.
Carolyn Smith explained the reason for the opportunity for the park commission to be part of the
ordinance and that it wasn't just about creating trails within the open spaces areas.
Nolan asked Thies for her opinion on the negatives of conservation design easements. She
explained they are not just blanket plans and there are so many different ways to set them up, and
how open space could be used. She said there are a number of issues when homes back up to
open space areas, since over time the properties that back up to the open space areas start to
dump and mow into these areas.
The Park Commission - Motion by Janet White, seconded by Ann Thies, to approve
continuance of the public hearing to the May 11, 2010 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Absent: (Paul Jaeb and Chris Hilberg)
Nolan recommended a small steering committee for the program. He said he was interested in
knowing more about what properties qualify, particularly how many 20 and 40 acres are existing
out there today.
V. Reid asked about parcels joining together. Finke explained that the mapping plan they would
put together would not be able to anticipate smaller acreage parcels getting put together. V. Reid
said she also wanted to know the positive and negatives of community systems.
Nolan commented on the general approach of the process and raised concern with how a
commissioner would gauge what they were allowing with such arbitrary regulations. He said he
would be concerned with setting a pattern and then someone new comes in and pushes the
envelope and suddenly a much higher precedence is set. He questioned how these things would
get measured. He asked what the measuring stick is, and what the City is really giving up.
Anderson asked if the process puts into question the need for a specific ordinance rather than
flexibility. Weir said she didn't think there was §upport for mandating{ .
lc oil eat, c'er
Finke suggested the commission consider looking at a sketch in an informal meeting instead of a
creating a steering committee.
Nielsen explained how her job involved collaborative process and how they turn out a better
product. She said she supported the steering committee process.
Weir said she is in support of the collaborative process.
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Williams said he didn't have an issue with no agreeing_with staffs recommendations--if-he were
on a steering committee, but would have more of an issue with representing other planning
commissioners.
Conclusion of discussion was:
• Density incentives — staff would create mapping with acreage parcels
• Open space ranges — the commission said their focus wasn't on the quantity, but rather
the quality of areas preserved
• Optional elements — the commission wanted to know more about how open space would
be arrived at, and how it would be preserved by utilizing the four step process. The
developer would need to show proof as to what they were thinking in the early stages of
design for a development project.
• Stewardship plan was also part of it.
• Sewage treatment — pros and cons of a community sewage
• Collaboration process — requested staff to look at sewered community's nation wide.
• Other incentives — pg 5 of the ordinance
• Rural residential districts suggest no minimum lot sizes and the commission suggested
flexibility of lot size and width (may be reduced language).
• Sewered Residential — flexibility as it applies to platted lots. Finke said there are some
people concerned with wetland buffers and tree areas.
Motion to continue public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission - Motion to reopen and continue the public hearing at the May
11, 2010 meeting by V. Reid, seconded by Anderson. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent:
R. Reid)
5. Adiourn: Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
7
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
-/,‘,/ //1 6- fc%K &I:it)
CITY OF MEDINA
CONCURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION ^.
& PARK COMMISSION Cia—i) t
Draft Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
1. Call to Order: Planning Commissioner Chair, Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, John Anderson, Kent Williams, Beth Nielsen,
Charles Nolan and Kathleen Martin.
Park Commissioners Ben Benson, Madeleine Linck, Paul aeb Bill Wa ytas Janet White, 1
Hilbee and Ann Thies.
Absent: Planning Commissioner Robin Reid PQ/ k
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne, and City
Planning Consultant Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering Company.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda:
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings:
Weir presented the Council update.
4. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of Medina's City Code pertaining
to the creation of regulations for Conservation Design and Open Space Protection.
Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering reviewed the conservation design ordinance, highlighting:
• How the overall plan would integrate resources within the community and to meet goals
of the community
• How it would assist in maintaining land values
• Protection of natural resources in exchange for increased density
• The ordinance utilizes the underlying zoning districts to determine density
• How it would be utilized by offering incentives as a voluntary program
• Anticipated schedule of ordinance approval
• Ordinance flexibility and incentives in exchange for increased density.
• The overall approach would be through an overlay district and implemented under a
planned unit development which could be established as a CD-PUD
• 40 acre minimum development size in rural areas and 20 acre minimum in sewered areas
with different design standards and incentives for each
1
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
• Base density was explained incentives with examples of acreage
Williams asked if a 40 acre parcel currently allows a maximum of four buildable lots would the
proposed ordinance allow eight. He asked what the limitation was on how it could be configured
and asked if the eight houses could be condensed into a corner of the 40 acres. He further asked
if there would be a minimum lot size requirement. Petrik explained the comprehensive plan
doesn't have specific minimum lot sizes or lot widths identified. He said the developer would
have complete flexibility with the lot sizes and widths as long as septic requirements could be
met. Williams asked if the five contiguous acres was related to septic requirements. Weir
clarified it is a way of controlling lot sizes and keeping them large. She further said the met
council intends after 2030 before density increases too much to sewer the entire southern portion
of medina (Minnehaha Creek Watershed). She said the met council wants to keep the average
density to no more than one unit per 10 acres because if we had greater density it would be
harder for them to sewer the area in the future.
The commission then discussed the cost to provide infrastructure for developments proposed that
are clustered. Benson said he thought it would be difficult for a developer to get density
increased by 100 percent because of all the wetlands and terrain in the community. He said a
developer's infrastructure costs would be down by clustering but density would be closer to
rather 50 percent increases rather than the full 100 percent.
Petrik reviewed other incentives that he wanted the commission to discuss such as lot size, lot
width, setbacks, housing types, landscaping, and screening. He clarified what buildable areas
meant by subtracting areas such as wetlands, lakes, hydric soils, slopes over 18%, required
wetland buffers, and the 100 -year flood plain. He said the idea is to provide a range of flexibility
for developers.
Petrik reviewed the City's top priorities such as sensitive ecological resources, views from vistas,
habitat corridors. He then explained the optional elements such as the land stewardship plan and
how it involved a four -step process. He explained the current process for a land use project can
be two to three steps and implementing this program would create a fourth step towards approval
if a developer wanted to increase density. He said that the program would initially determine if
there would be ecological resources that would want to be preserved in exchange for the
increased density.
The commission discussed sewage treatment within developments that may have clustered
housing with smaller lots and how the ordinance would allow flexibility by possibly allowing
drain fields in the conservation open space easement areas, but the actual tanks would always be
required to be installed on each individual lot. Petrik explained the ordinance may require
revisions to allow the drain fields within the easement areas.
Petrik explained the Collaboration and Traditional processes of the ordinance. Thies said she
worked with conservation design easements and said she is very familiar with many of them in
Lake Elmo.
2
4
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Linck asked if there was a property with 150 acres and was used only for cropland and wasn't
that great of property to preserve if they would be eligible for increased density. Petrik said
increased density would only be increased for properties that provide some natural resource to
preserve but if a property in the past had a natural prairie or woodland that was worth restoring
back to its natural state the developer could increase their density. Petrik said the natural
resources around a proposed property to be developed would always be taken into consideration.
Thies said Wild Meadows was a good example of a conservation design with a conservation
easement.
Anderson asked why and how the acreage was decided as 20 acres for sewered properties and 40
acres for rural properties. Petrik explained a larger parcel is necessary in order to capture
protection of ecological resources.
V. Reid asked if the met council could bring infrastructure into the conservation easement areas.
Thies clarified it would be difficult for the met council to do and typically they won't.
V. Reid asked if a conservation design easement could be converted to an agricultural use.
Petrik explained the Commission would have discretion through the process of designing the
ordinance what the conservation easement could be used for and have it defined and would be
written into the easement.
V. Reid said she is concerned with trails that don't connect to a city wide system and would like
to make sure it is a goal to require trails to connect or be part of an overall plan to connect as part
of the ordinance. She said she didn't see trails as part of a conservation easement, but rather a by
product. She asked if it could be stated in the ordinance that trails be required to connect to other
trails.
Thies said the commission should discuss and require the use of stewardship fees. She said the
money should be required to be put into a fund to manage the property. She also felt that
reducing the amount of homes that back up to the open space is better since it is the homes that
back up to the open space that creates issues such as dumping and mowing into the open space
areas and is difficult to monitor.
The commission discussed examples of 40 acre corn fields with no natural resource benefits to
the City. Petrik explained the city doesn't have to allow benefits to a developer if the property
doesn't have any ecological benefits to preserve.
Martin asked for clarification of the joint steering committee meetings and suggested staff
discusses the meeting laws with the city attorney. She further suggested adding language under
the purpose statement that the development should enhance what would otherwise have been
allowed.
Nolan asked about the role of the steering committee and if it's a way to give the applicant
assurance from the City. He raised concern with the creation of the committee and how it would
give certain amount of authority or control over what would be suggested to an
3
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
applicant/developer and that if the right people weren't designated the developer could run into
problems.
Petrik explained the steering committee process and how it has been used in the City of Hanover.
The commissioners discussed the process of the future steering committee and discussed their
concerns of feeling some sort of obligation to the developer if they were part of the steering
committee.
V. Reid asked staff if they had looked nation wide at other communities. Petrik said he knows
other states have these types of open space ordinances and communities from lectures he's
attended but wasn't sure where they were developed beyond the state of Minnesota.
Nolan asked for historical data on how density standards had been established. He asked how
often in the elective process would it be utilized and why would the city want to do it with the
possibility of such high density numbers. He further asked if the city had to allow such a high
percentage of increased density. He understands the use of clustering but was unsure why the
city would want to double the density and questioned whether the city would be going forward or
backwards and therefore needed some historical background to better understand.
Petrik said Lake Elmo allows up to 200% density incentives which worked well for them to get
the development they wanted. Their incentive was to protect key views and not allow housing to
be visible from roadways.
Petrik said other communities range from 100-200% increased density incentives. He said Hugo
developed three projects prior to eliminating the conservation design and open space protection
area ordinance to gain density. The community was satisfied with the ordinance, but eliminated
it since the met council thought the city was developing with too high of a density than they
liked.
Other cities 6-7 Lino Lakes did two programs and felt it wasn't very effective and didn't have
very many incentives.
Nolan asked why not make it a mandatory program and get 100 percent participation and
establish some sort of environmental value. Petrik said all the communities, except Hanover are
voluntary. Nolan asked why not make it mandatory for participation. Benson asked if it was a
goal of the city to have the program is mandatory. He said he likes the idea for some
developments but doesn't think that all properties need to be the same. He thinks the city has
done a good job with current rural standards but does not think the open space program would
apply to all properties. He said we may find a few developers who would go through the process
and can think of one property in particular that would be beneficial to be developed under the
program. Nolan said he had not taken a position on the issue but rather gathering information to
make an informative decision.
Petrik said the program is voluntary as referenced in the comprehensive plan. He said if it was
made mandatory it would go against the comprehensive plan and residents would question why
the city wasn't following their comprehensive plan. H suggested that if the commissioners felt
strongly about one or two properties in particular they could be identified as an area that should
4
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
go through the process. He said he would be concerned with the political fall out of making the
ordinance mandatory.
Nolan asked what percentage of medina qualifies to develop under the conservation ordinance.
Weir asked if staff had looked at the 20 and 40 acre parcels to evaluate which properties possibly
qualified. Finke said they had discussed putting together a map of the parcels but hadn't
completed one. The commission requested staff to prepare a map for the next concurrent
meeting so they could make further recommendations.
Nolan asked within the higher density and the lower density is their higher participation in one or
the other. Petrik said the density incentive would have higher value in the rural areas than other
market standards would have more market value in the sewered areas.
The public hearing was opened at 8:42 p.m.
Martha Van de Ven —1765 Medina Road — Thanked the commission for all the good questions
they had pertaining to the proposed ordinance and said she really appreciated it. She said she has
a question dealing with the exception to the 40 acres in the rural residential district areas. She
asked for clarification of the regulation on page two subdivision 1.(b). Petrik said he thought it
would be a good idea to provide some flexibility in the event someone could prove their project
wouldn't visually impair visibility and protect resources. He said they want to allow some
flexibility but also provide an incentive and that is why density is being recommended to be able
to increase either 2 or 1.5 percent dependant on zoning. He said it is all discretionary. Van de
Van raised concern with property being able to develop beyond the five contiguous suitable soil
acre requirements today if the site had wetlands.
Williams asked Van de Ven what her concern was. Van de Ven said she is concerned with
doubling the density and was also concerned with law suits from builders being allowed this kind
of discretion.
Petrik said if the 40 acre minimum requirement is unlikely to be used; maybe the regulation
should be taken out.
Susan Seeland, owner of a 200 acre farm near County Road 6 and Homestead Trail said she
thought it looked like the city has given the ordinance a lot of thought and asked the
commissioners to really think about what their goal was. She said if it is to prevent sewer hook-
ups then keeping the acreage at 40 acres probably wouldn't work and they may want to think
about reducing the minimum size requirement. She asked for the definition of hydric soils and
what the goal relating to soils really is. She asked to define hydric soils. Petrik explained the
different soil classifications. Seeland asked the commissioners to consider community waste
water technology since requiring everyone to have their own septic would be impeding the
ability to develop.
Nolan asked for pros and cons to community sewer developments. Petrik suggested if the
commissioners were interested in this type of community the city should bring in experts and
examples so the commissioners could understand this type of development.
5
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Seeland asked about establishing 50% into conservation easements. She asked the
commissioners to think about how it should be designed since there's open space areas where
you want people to come to and it benefits the community and other open space areas that may
be better to be private.
Public hearing closed at 8:54p.m.
Thies asked what the goal was of staff for a motion. Finke explained the reason for a concurrent
meeting.
Carolyn Smith explained the reason for the opportunity for the park commission to be part of the
ordinance and that it wasn't just about creating trails within the open spaces areas created.
Nolan asked Thies for her opinion on the negatives of conservation design easements. She
explained that they are not just blanket plans and that there are so many different ways to set
them up and how open space could be used. She said there are a number of issues when homes
back up to open space areas since over time the properties that back up to the open space areas
start to dump and mow into these areas.
The Park Commission - Motion by Janet White, seconded by Ann Thies to approve continue
the public hearing to the _ 11, 2010 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. (Park
Commissioners Absent:
Nolan recommended a small steering committee for the program. He said he was interested in
knowing more about what properties qualify, particularly what 20 and 40 acres are existing out
there today.
V. Reid asked about parcels joining together. Finke explained that the mapping plan they would
put together would not be able to anticipate smaller acreage parcels getting put together. V. Reid
said she also wanted to know the positive and negatives of community systems.
Nolan commented on the general approach of the process and raised concern with how a
commissioner would gauge what they were allowing with such arbitrarily regulations. He said
he would be concerned with setting a pattern and then someone new comes in and pushes the
envelope and suddenly a much higher precedence is set. He questioned how these things would
get measured. He asked what the measuring stick is and what the city is really giving up.
Anderson asked if the process puts into question the need for a specific ordinance rather than the
flexibility. Weir said she didn't think there was support for mandating an ordinance.
Finke suggested the commission consider looking at a sketch in an informal meeting instead of a
creating a steering committee.
Nielsen explained how her job involved collaborative process and how they turn out a better
product. She said she supported the steering committee process.
6
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Weir said she is in support of the collaborative process.
Williams said he didn't have an issue with not agreeing with staff's recommendations if he were
on a steering committee but would have more of an issue with representing other Planning
commissioners.
Conclusion of discussion was:
• Density incentives — staff would create mapping with acreage parcels
• Open space ranges — the commission said their focus wasn't on the quantity but rather the
quality of areas preserved
• Optional elements — the commission wanted to know more about how open space would
arrived at and how it would be preserved by utilizing the four step process. The
developer would need to show proof as to what they were thinking in the early stages of
design for a development project.
• Stewardship plan was also part of it.
• Sewage treatment — pros and cons of a community sewage
• Collaboration process — requested staff to look at sewered community's nation wide.
• Other incentives — pg 5 of the ordinance
• Rural residential districts suggest no minimum lot sizes and the commission suggested
flexibility of lot size and width (may be reduced language).
• Sewered Residential — flexibility as it applies to platted lots. Finke said there are some
people concerned with wetland buffers and tree areas.
Motion to continue public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission - Motion to reopen and continue the public hearing at the May
11, 2010 meeting by V. Reid, seconded by Anderson. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent:
R. Reid)
5. Adiourn: Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
7