HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-08-2010MEDINA
' `Y .__° fi PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 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. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of May 11, 2010 Concurrent Planning Commission and
Park Commission meeting minutes
6. Approval of May 11, 2010 Planning Commission minutes
7. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of the City
Code of Ordinance — Pertaining to the timing of growth and
development to be served by city utilities
8. City Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL June 4, 2010
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Adams
DATE: May 27, 2010
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates for June 1, 2010 City Council Meeting
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 reviewed the ordinance on
April 13 and May 11 and recommended approval with a number of changes. Barr will
present to the Council on June 1.
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 June Planning Commission meeting, in order to complete
work on the Conservation Design regulations.
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 ordinances for rezoning on March 16
and April 6, and an amended Site Plan CUP and Final Plat on May 4. Staff is reviewing
building plans and construction is scheduled to start soon.
B) Rental Townhome Concept Plan — 705 Hamel Road — Robb Stauber has requested a
Concept Plan Review for a 6 -unit building at 705 Hamel Road. The City had previously
approved a 3 -unit townhome building on this site in 2008. The applicant seeks feedback on
which zoning district to develop by and a potential parking setback variance. The Planning
Commission provided comments on May 11 and the Council will review on June 1.
C) Bradley Leawood 3rd Addn Plat — 3415 Leawood Drive — the applicant has applied to split
the existing lot into two parcels. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on May
11 and recommended approval. The applicant is working on additional detail, and the it is
tentatively scheduled for City Council review on June 15.
D) Enclave of Medina Subdivision — 3212 Hunter Drive — Lennar has submitted for
preliminary plat and Comp Plan Amendment for the Holasek property. The plat identifies
140 single family homes and 42 townhomes. The applicant has requested to shift the
MUSA to the south to include an additional 6.5 net acres and is excluding 6.5 net acres of
the wooded area from development. The applicant has also requested review of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project. Staff has conducted a preliminary
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 June 1, 2010
City Council Meeting
review and asked for additional information. The City will schedule the application for a
Public Hearing when complete.
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) 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. The City Council adopted
resolutions at the May 18, and the project will be closed.
G) Septic System Wetland Setback Variance — 1255 Medina Road —The City Council
approved the resolution at the January 5 Council meeting. The septic system has been
installed and the owner is installing the Upland Buffer as required by the variance. This
project has been closed.
H) 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.
I) 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 City Council granted until September 11,
2010 for the applicant to final the plat.
Additional Projects
A) Zoning Enforcement (Hamel Station tree removal) — Staff learned that the Elm Creek
Watershed was working with a consultant to come up with a plan, and staff has been
coordinating efforts of the City, the Watershed, and the developer. Rather than contracting
with a consultant to complete a separate plan, staff has been attempting to work with the
Watershed's consultant to come up with a plan that works for both bodies.
B) Zoning Enforcement (Manure Management) — staff has conducted inspections of manure
management consistent with procedures set forth in the City's Manure Management Policy
(80.10). Staff has made a recommendation to one of the property owners to improve storage
procedures and will follow-up after 15 -days.
C) Zoning Enforcement (General) — staff has been in contact with a number of property
owners (especially vacant lots) to mow tall grasses. A number of property owners have
removed unlicensed, inoperable vehicles from residential properties, as well.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 June 1, 2010
City Council Meeting
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 CONCURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION
3 & PARK COMMISSION
4 Draft Meeting Minutes
5 Tuesday, May 11, 2010
6
7
8 1. Call to Order: Planning Commissioner Chair Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at
9 7:00 p.m.
10
11 Present: Planning Commissioners, Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, John Anderson, Kent Williams,
12 Beth Nielsen, Charles Nolan and Kathleen Martin.
13
14 Park Commissioners, Ben Benson, Madeleine Linck, Janet White and Ann Thies.
15
16 Absent: Park Commissioners, Paul Jaeb, Bill Waytas, and Chris Hilberg.
17
18 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne, and City
19 Planning Consultant Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering Company.
20
21 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda:
22
23 No public comments.
24
25 3. Update from City Council Proceedings:
26
27 Weir presented the Council update.
28
29 4. Approval of April 13, 2010 concurrent Planning Commission & Park Commission
30 minutes:
31
32 The Planning Commission & Park Commission - Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen
33 to approve the April 13, 2010 minutes with recommended changes. Motion carried
34 unanimously. (Absent: Jaeb, Waytas, and Hilberg)
35
36 5. Continued Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of Medina's City Code
37 pertaining to the creation of regulations for Conservation Design and Open Space
38 Protection:
39
40 Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering explained that at the last meeting the Commission requested
41 hearing from other communities regarding the collaborative track process. He introduced
42 Breann Rothstein, Senior Planner for the City of Minnetrista.
43
44 Rothstein provided explanation of the process. She said two approaches could be done, one of
45 which is a regulatory development approach or the second would be a collaborative public values
46 approach. She explained a city would need to have good ordinances even if it wanted to do a
1
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 collaborative values approach in order to achieve goals. If a city doesn't have good ordinances
2 to use as a guide, the developer wouldn't have any obligations or guidelines to follow and
3 therefore it wouldn't provide opportunities for the city to compromise with the design of a
4 project.
5
6 Rothstein said the City of Minnetrista utilized their PUD ordinance for the collaborative process.
7 She said part of the collaborative track process was to be able to create a vision. She said city
8 regulations typically don't allow for creativity or allow staff to think outside the box. They were
9 fortunate to have a project come in called "Woodland Cove" located along Highway 7 that they
10 were able to use as a case study in developing the collaborative track process.
11
12 Rothstein said the result of the case study and process was very well received. They found
13 involving outside agencies early in the process was favorable and developers claimed to prefer
14 spending more of their time up front rather than revising their plans multiple times through the
15 regulatory process.
16
17 Nolan asked Rothstein if it's the PUD process that allows their city to withdraw from a project if
18 it didn't agree with the vision. Rothstein confirmed.
19
20 V. Reid asked how the City chose public policy members. Rothstein said they selected all public
21 policy members to be on the committee. Initially, three concurrent meetings were held with the
22 Planning Commission, Parks Commission and the City Council. V. Reid asked if the meetings
23 were optional. Rothstein said the meetings were optional but most members chose to attend.
24
25 Nolan asked if the meetings were on regularly scheduled council meetings. Rothstein confirmed
26 meetings were scheduled to run concurrent with the council meeting and that the meetings were
27 open to the public. She further added that the City established an Advisory Committee which
28 included the developers and neighbors near the proposed project area.
29
30 Benson asked Cheryl Fischer, Minnetrista Mayor how she felt the collaborative process worked.
31 She explained she is very optimistic with the process now but wasn't sure initially. She further
32 talked about the "Woodland Cove" project.
33
34 Linck asked Fischer what type of housing was included in the "Woodland Cove" project she had
35 described. Fischer replied mixed use residential.
36
37 Weir asked Rothstein what she recommended, a conservation design ordinance through a PUD
38 or to just have a conservation design ordinance. Rothstein said as long as a zoning district was
39 created to incorporate the conservation design goals of the city that would be all that would be
40 necessary.
41
42 Petrik reviewed the map related to "eligible properties and potential rural lots" within the
43 community that would potentially develop in the future.
44
45 Nolan asked about locating primary and alternate sites for septic systems if lots were smaller due
46 to clustering. Finke explained a community septic system could be incorporated into a project if
47 a large piece of property for example had pockets of suitable soils. He said smaller properties
48 with approximately ten acres could potentially develop under existing regulations.
2
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1
2 Benson said his understanding of the process would be that a committee would look at a project
3 and identify all the mitigating issues such as septic sites/and or septic systems and that it would
4 be a collaborative issue to discuss and feels it would allow flexibility. Williams asked why some
5 parcels could double in density and others weren't allowed to do the same. Finke explained the
6 size and significant value of each property were factors to consider. Williams raised concern that
7 the city was not taking into account other issues such as setbacks when suggesting increased
8 density. Finke said the idea for conservation design is to cluster properties together therefore
9 setbacks would more than likely be reduced.
10
11 Martin suggested adding language into the purpose statement that the "district is to preserve and
12 reclaim ecological resources". Williams agreed with the change.
13
14 The Commissioners discussed clarity of language and terms utilized to be consistent throughout
15 ordinance. An example would be to use "conservation area" language rather than "open space"
16 language.
17
18 Theis asked Finke to better define "Designated Open Space" as it relates to "active recreational"
19 purpose.
20
21 Martin suggested the word "upland buffers" be used rather than Wetland buffers under Subd 2.
22 Sewered Residential Districts.
23
24 Martin suggested the city attorney review the "enforcement" language.
25
26 Williams asked why 1.5 density bonuses are recommended on smaller pieces of land in the
27 ordinance rather than doubling the allowable units. Nolan said what concerns him is that future
28 councils could think the ordinance requires all or nothing. He said he didn't feel the ordinance
29 was strong enough since it appeared to allow density to be doubled from the beginning. Benson
30 said the ordinance should be an incentive base plan to allow increased density. Commissioners
31 discussed what would need to be achieved for a developer to double their density.
32
33 Smith recommended a point system that had suggested improvements.
34
35 Nolan talked about the collaborative process and the suggested point system methods. He said if
36 the city was going to expand the list he would like the city council to recognize that the
37 commission doesn't look at all the items the same. Smith said the city had utilized the PUD
38 process in the past and wasn't so sure about the use of it. Martin explained she liked the
39 collaborative process the way Minnetrista utilized it.
40
41 Nolan said the planning commission favored a collaborative system approach. Williams thought
42 an ordinance that had a collaborative process would be favorable but had set
43 guidelines/principles.
44
45 Petrik said he could go to the utilize the objectives in the City's open space report, call them
46 public values, and use them to benchmark for establishing density bonuses.
47
3
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 Continued Public Hearing — Public asked if any members wanted to speak. No public
2 comments.
3
4 Public Hearing Closed at 8:33 p.m.
5
6 Weir asked if the commissioners thought the ordinance should only apply to high quality natural
7 areas rather than all properties. Benson said heavy emphasis should be on reclaiming properties
8 back to their original state or keeping existing areas such as old tree growth areas. Nolan asked
9 if the city would only be looking at 20-40 acre parcels to allow for doubling a property's density
10 or if the majority of the properties in the city would be allowed the same option. Benson said the
11 smaller the lot the less the city would gain by the collaborative process. The Commissioners
12 concluded that 20-40 acre parcels would continue to be allowed to double density as
13 recommended.
14
15 Weir asked for clarification of septic systems. She said they are typically mound sites and would
16 like someone to speak about septic systems. She is alright with alternate sites in prairie pasture
17 type landscape areas. Smith said the commission also needed to look at other types of drainfield
18 systems being utilized in the world. Nolan said language should be added to not allow a primary
19. septic system in woodland areas.
20
21 Benson said he was intrigued by Minnetrista not using a subcommittee.
22
23 Williams asked if the process had to be in the ordinance.
24 White asked how normal park dedication fees get worked into the process. Petrik said the
25 proposed ordinance does allow the option of the city waiving the fee or extending it over a three
26 year time period similar to what the city did for the OSI project.
27
28 Smith suggested staff provide a rough draft with the recommended changes.
29
30 Martin left at 9:20 p.m.
31
32 Nolan summarized recommended changes:
33
34 1. Redraft opening paragraph
35 2. Incorporate purpose statement language throughout document
36 3. Identify at least seven goals based on the comprehensive plan
37 4. Not all goals should be weighted equally and would need to be prioritized
38
39 Planning Commission - Motion by Williams, seconded by Anderson to recommend approval
40 subject to recommended changes and additions. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin)
41
42 Park Commission — Motion by Benson, seconded by Linck to recommend approval subject to
43 recommended changes and additions. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Jaeb, Waytas, and
44 Hilberg)
45
46 6. Adiourn: Motion by Nielson, seconded by Williams to adjourn the Planning Commission
47 meeting at 9:28 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The general consensus of the Park
48 Commission was to adjourn at 9:28 p.m. (Absent: Jaeb, Waytas, Hilberg, and Martin)
4
» 'Medina Planning Commission Draft May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
2 Draft Meeting Minutes
3 Tuesday, May 11, 2010
4
5
6 1. Ca11 to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, Robin Reid, John Anderson, Kathleen Martin,
9 Kent Williams, and Beth Nielsen.
10
11 Absent: none
12
13 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne, and NAC
14 Planning Consultant Laurie Smith.
15
16 2. Public Hearing - Robert Bradley — 3415 Leawood Drive (PID 09-118-23-32-0002) —
17 Preliminary Plat to subdivide one existing lot into two
18
19 Smith presented application. She pointed out the existing accessory structure does not meet
20 setbacks for an animal structure and wanted it noted for the record that it should be included
21 in the resolution. She explained the proposed plat has two wetlands, but no impacts are being
22 proposed. She said staff had reviewed the plat and found it consistent with the subdivision
23 regulations.
24
25 Anderson asked if conditions were outlined. Smith explained they would be incorporated
26 into the resolution.
27
28 Mark Gronberg of Gronberg and Associates said he was representing the property owners
29 and would be available to answer questions.
30
31 Doug Hoskins, Coldwell Banker Burnett, said the proposed plat was to establish value of
32 what the house and barn are worth separate from the additional land. He further said that if
33 they could sell the property as a whole without the subdivision they would be willing to do
34 so. At this time they want to provide options to buyers. He said they will not complete a
35 final plat unless they have a buyer and need two lots.
36
37 Nolan asked why it wasn't split off originally. Hoskins said it was not divided because the
38 owners wanted the option to have horses.
39
40 Public Hearing opened at 9:42 p.m.
41
42 No public comment.
43
44 Public Hearing closed at 9:43 p.m.
45
1
Medina Planning Commission Draft May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes'
1 Nolan asked about the suitable soils and Gronberg explained the site had remained the same,
2 except for the topographic slopes. He said nothing had been done to the site since the
3 original plat, so the soils would remain the same.
4
5 Gronberg explained the original owner kept the lot with the intent of subdividing in the
6 future.
7
8 Nolan noted the plan didn't show the proposed buffer area and asked if the buffer would be
9 shown prior to going to the City Council. Smith explained the buffer area was a condition of
10 approval which provides some discretion to the applicant. The applicant requests the buffer
11 width be discussed by the City Council.
12
13 Anderson asked for clarification of the use of the existing shed and if they had any intentions
14 of it being utilized for animals in the future. Gronberg informed the commission they are not
15 intending to use the shed for animals since the structure does not meet the minimum 150 foot
16 setback required.
17
18 Motion by Anderson, Seconded by Nielsen to approve the preliminary plat with
19 recommended conditions. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None)
20
21
22 3. Public Hearing - Stauber/Rosati - 705 Hamel Road (12-118-23-32-0001) Concept Plan
23 Review to construct a six unit townhome building.
24
25 Finke presented the concept plan providing background history of the previous application made
26 by the applicant in 2007. He explained the changes in the Comprehensive Plan since the
27 previous approval which allows for higher density than what was originally approved. He
28 further explained the concept plan process is to provide feedback to the applicant. He explained
29 the on -site topographic changes, elm creek floodplain, wetlands, significant trees along property
30 lines, and other uses and zoning districts in the area that impact the site.
31
32 Finke explained the primary reason the applicant applied for the concept plan review was
33 because the property is currently zoned Multi -family Residential (MR), yet Residential -Limited
34 Multiple Family (R-4) was created last year with the intent of this property being rezoned. He
35 explained that the MR district has lower density than the R-4 district and the question to the
36 commission is if the property should be reviewed under the MR or R-4 district. He explained,
37 staff supported the R-4 density as proposed in the concept plan assuming it meets the 7 units per
38 acre requirements. He noted the buffer yard has the greatest impact on the site.
39
40 Finke then explained the applicants request for variances to parking setbacks to the front and side
41 yard and asked if the commission supported the design. He also noted the maximum hardcover
42 is 25 percent since it is in the shoreland overlay district. The concept plan proposes to exceed
43 the 25 percent which requires a variance.
44
45 Finke explained the limited information on the proposed building design. He said the height of
46 building would exceed the maximum 30 foot building height and would also need a variance.
2
Medina Planning Commission
Draft May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 The building would be required to be sprinkled and requested the commission to discuss garbage
2 handling on -site.
3
4 Finke said the comprehensive plan asks for a fair amount of density be provided on this site.
5 Staffs recommendation to add additional parking beyond the code requirement was due to Hamel
6 Road not allowing parking a number of months during the year. He said the applicant claims
7 their overall hardship is the topography of the site.
8
9 Finke explained LID practices proposed such as the bio-filtration basin and swales. He said the
10 hardcover is relatively low and the flat area at the rear of the building would allow for
11 recreational activity and staff suggests the applicant construct a covered area for bike racks since
12 the garages proposed will be small and not provide areas for much other than a vehicle.
13
14 Finke said park dedication would not be required if the they didn't subdivide or CIC the
15 property.
16
17 Finke said the trail plan identifies a trail as a high priority along the north side of Hamel road.
18
19 Finke said the applicant has commented on trying to provide rents that are affordable. He said
20 the Metropolitan Council allows sewer fees to be reduced if the building provided a shared
21 laundry facility rather than individual. He said the City could reduce water connection fees as an
22 incentive to develop the site. In exchange the city could require the applicant to record a
23 document stating the townhome units would always be affordable housing.
24
25 V. Reid asked what the garages would look like. Finke explained the garages were front facing.
26
27 Martinson asked if there were six tuck -under garage spaces and the balance would be surface
28 spaces. Finke confirmed there are six tuck -under garage spaces which are front facing.
29
30 Williams asked about the driveway to the west. Finke said it was a private drive for the existing
31 townhomes. Williams asked if the applicant had considered linking to the private driveway to
32 the west. Finke said the discussion had taken place with the applicant and property owner to the
33 west during the previous application approval but rights were not granted. Finke was aware of
34 the discussion, though unsure as to why the easement was not obtained.
35
36 Rosati, applicant and landowner, asked the commission if they recall the orange house that use to
37 be on the lot. He said they are anxious to get going on developing the property since they are on
38 an interest only payment plan. Rosati said he needed the parking area to be in front of the
39 building to be economically feasible. Also, a sprinkler system is not economically feasible.
40
41 Nolan asked for the applicant to respond to the comments made on obtaining an easement for use
42 of the driveway to the west. Rosati said when they were working on the previous application the
43 property owners to the west weren't interested. Nolan asked if Rosati had given an honest effort
44 in obtaining an easement. Rosati said they did.
45
3
Medina Planning Commission Draft May 11, 2010 Meeting Minuteg
1 Anderson asked what the requirements are for the building to be sprinkled. Finke said within the
2 fire code there is a square footage for multi -family and single family. Staff didn't have enough
3 information on the application to determine square footage. He said the fire marshal recommends
4 sprinkling the building regardless of the square footage of the building since the building is
5 difficult to access at the rear. Rosati said a sprinkler system would not be economically feasible.
6
7 Martinson said she heard the applicant really wants to place parking in the front of the building.
8 Rosati said it is the concept plan they had before and they continue to want parking in the front.
9 Martinson asked about the height of the retaining wall. Finke said the wall is approximately 12-
10 13 feet tall. Martinson asked what that would look like. Finke said it would be some sort of
11 modular block. Rosati said a retaining wall would create privacy.
12
13 Anderson asked for clarification of the fire code related to sprinkler systems. Finke explained
14 that there is a fire code requiring a sprinkler system for buildings over a certain square footage.
15 He said even if it fell below the square footage it would not be accessible in case of fire. With no
16 fire lanes being provided, the sprinkler system would be in exchange for not providing fire
17 access.
18
19 V. Reid asked if the retaining wall would be 13 feet in height and asked what it would look like.
20 Finke explained it would be a modular block wall
21
22 Williams asked if the building was moved to the east would it provide enough space for access to
23 rear of building.
24
25 Finke explained there are a number of potential designs for the property but the concept being
26 proposed is the most affordable.
27
28 Nolan asked if the applicant looked at staggering of the units. Rosati said the farther they go
29 back, the more it impacts the sewer.
30
31 Williams likes the plan since the parking is the farthest possible distance from the creek.
32
33 R. Reid said there are a lot of garage door designs to improve the appearance of the front facing
34 garage doors.
35
36 Public Hearing Opened at 10:23 p.m.
37
38 John Hite, 10 year resident of Medina. Wife and himself are owners of Four -Leaf Investments
39 and own the four-plex buildings to the west of the subject property. He said they are long term
40 investors and feels the position of the garages would look terrible and inconsistent with the
41 appearance of the rest of the buildings in the area. He said the garage doors would be open
42 frequently only adding to the unsightly appearance. He said he prohibits parking on Hamel Road
43 by his tenants so that at any given time they can look out their front and not see cars parked in
44 front of the building. Hite said he is in opposition of the concept plan proposed.
45
4
Medina Planning Commission Draft May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 He said the density of the concept plan is 50 percent more than the surrounding properties and is
2 inconsistent with the types of buildings in the area. He said the dumpsters are a concern since
3 when he purchased his buildings he got rid of the dumpsters and required individual garbage
4 cans which are required to be kept at the rear of the building.
5
6 He said he feels like the variances are a result of a bad investment and an economic hardship is
7 difficult for him to understand and doesn't think the applicant should pass the loss along to other
8 properties in the area. He feels the issues are self inflicted.
9
10 He further said he doesn't want to see a bunch of garages or dumpsters so close to the road and
11 hopes the applicant can do something with the lot.
12
13 Nolan asked if part of the solution was giving them access through his property. Hite said he
14 told the applicant he'd be willing to consider a north -south driveway easement, but not along the
15 back going east -west since it would increase traffic for his existing tenants.
16
17 Hite said the zoning allows for the proposed density, but the site can't handle it. Finke explained
18 the property could have a three story building on it.
19
20 Nolan explained that the City redid the comprehensive plan and is now asking for higher density
21 in this area. He said when we look at higher density the commission has to evaluate each project
22 individually.
23
24 Nolan said he would prefer parking at the rear of the building. He asked Hite if he would work
25 with Rosati.
26
27 Williams explained he wanted to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and if it means
28 parking in the front of the building then that is the way it goes. Nielsen said she didn't like the
29 parking in the front. Anderson asked if the building was narrowed and was three stories if they
30 could get parking in the back. Rosati said if they could they would have done it 3 years ago.
31
32 V. Reid said the parking should be placed at the rear of the building to provide an urban feel.
33 With all the parking at the front of the lot it is as much of an issue as the garage doors in the
34 front. She feels the city is trying to improve the Uptown Hamel area and sympathizes with the
35 applicant's financial issues involved with developing the property.
36
37 V. Reid said she is concerned with the berm, parking and garages in the front yard. She feels the
38 city is trying to upgrade the area and has concern with the design of the project.
39
40 Anderson said it's a vacant lot and a bad project is worse than a vacant lot. Williams said the
41 project has to be economically feasible. Nielsen asked who determines what is feasible.
42 Anderson said we know a three story building would allow parking in the back. Finke said the
43 garages in the front are allowed by city code.
44
45 Williams raised concern making sure the city allows for approval of an economically feasible
46 project. He said he has taken the applicant's word that they have looked at all their options to
5
Medina Planning Commission Draft May 11, 2010 Meeting Minute's '
1 develop the property and said the city may have to give on some of the issues to allow the
2 property to develop. He said the other option may be for the current property owner to sell the
3 property and maybe someone else could develop it for less.
4
5 Finke said, in regards to consistency with the neighborhood, the front car garage doors would be
6 allowed by city code even though it may be out of character with the surrounding area. He
7 suggested the commission may prefer a taller building allowing for parking in the rear. Nolan
8 said he'd prefer the taller building. Finke explained the proposed project is already a three story
9 building from the rear. Nolan said he's not convinced parking isn't possible at the rear of the
10 building.
11
12 R. Reid said she could live with the garage doors in the front, but her concern is the garages are
13 only one -car and most households have two cars. This would mean the parking lot would
14 frequently have cars in it. She also doesn't like the idea of all the garbage cans, and asked if fire
15 hydrants could be placed at the rear of the building rather than requiring a sprinkler system for
16 the building. Finke said hydrants wouldn't prevent requiring a sprinkler system.
17
18 Nolan said he would like to see parking at the rear of the building and asked Hite to allow the
19 applicant to obtain a driveway easement going east -west. He said if the driveway was going
20 north -south down the property line it would have a greater impact on the site.
21
22 R. Reid asked if the building could be turned 90 degrees. Nolan said he's considered that design
23 but didn't think it would solve the issues the site presents.
24
25 Anderson asked the applicant to take a hard look at putting parking at the rear of the building.
26
27 Finke asked the commission if they would be alright with keeping the MR zoning with the
28 understanding the applicant would be held to the density requirements of the comprehensive
29 plan. The commission agreed to review the property with the MR zoning. Nolan said the
30 commission would give variances for the development of the project if parking was placed at the
31 rear of the building.
32
33 Public Hearing Closed at 10:54 p.m.
34
35 No action needed.
36
37
38 4. Planning Department Report
39
40 Finke updated the Commission.
41
42
43 5. Approval of April 13, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes:
44
45 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Nielsen to approve the April 13, 2010 minutes with
46 recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: none)
47
6
- Medina Planning Commission Draft May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 5. Approval of April 13, 2010 minutes of concurrent meeting with the City Council:
2
3 Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to approve the April 13, 2010 minutes with
4 recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: none)
5
6
7 7. City Council Meeting Schedule: Discussion of representation at Council meeting.
8
9
10 8. Adjourn: Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Williams to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. Motion
11 carried unanimously. (Absent: none)
12
7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: June 3, 2010
MEETING: June 8, 2010 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Staging/Phasing Plan Point System Ordinance — Public Hearing
Background
The Planning Commission and City Council discussed the Staging/Phasing Plan Point System
back in March and provided general policy direction to staff in order to draft the regulations.
The point system is intended to regulate the flexibility allowed in the Comprehensive Plan for
properties to develop up to five years earlier than identified in the Staging and Growth Plan. The
attached ordinance creates the point system.
Excerpts from relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan are attached for reference, and were
discussed back in March. As with other ordinances discussed over the past year, the City's
regulations need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which provides the foundation
for the official controls.
Process for Reviewing Requests for Phasing Plan Flexibility
The ordinance requires an applicant to apply for a PUD if they wish to develop prior to the date
identified in the Phasing Plan. This is similar strategy as was utilized for the Conservation
Design ordinance. Staff recommends this process because a PUD provides the opportunity for
the City to grant flexibility to the Phasing Plan and to also apply additional requirements to a
project in exchange for that flexibility.
Review Criteria — Crucial, Primary, and Secondary Factors
The ordinance establishes three categories of factors in order to determine if property will be
allowed to develop earlier than planned in the Phasing Plan.
The "crucial factor" for consideration is infrastructure capacity. The consensus of both the
Planning Commission and City Council was to emphasize this factor. As written, a project is not
allowed to develop early if the City determines that existing water, sewer, and road infrastructure
is not sufficient to support both the proposed project and all of the development identified for the
current Phasing period. The ordinance does allow the applicant to propose construction of
improvements necessary to improve the City's infrastructure capacity, if the improvements are
constructed at no cost to the City or other property owners.
In order for a project to develop early, the ordinance requires the City to make an affirmative
decision on the crucial factor, and also requires the project to attain 40 or more points amongst
the "primary factors" and "secondary factors." The primary factors may be granted up to 10
points and the secondary factors may be granted up to 5 points.
Staging/Phasing Point System
Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting
Page 1 of 2 June 8, 2010
The threshold of 40 points is equivalent to attaining 70% of the primary factor points and 60% of
the secondary factor points.
The criteria are general in nature, which appeared to be the consensus of the Commission and
Council during discussions in March. Each factor establishes a baseline for determining points,
but leaves a good deal of discretion for the City to grant points for a project.
The "primary factors" in the draft ordinance are as follows:
(1) Natural resource protection and low impact development.
(2) Proximity to existing development.
(3) Open Space Protection.
(4) Limited impacts on city services.
The "secondary factors" in the draft ordinance are as follows:
(1) Sustainability.
(2) High quality architectural quality and design.
(3) Community amenities.
(4) Affordable housing (residential development only).
(5) Employment opportunities (commercial/business development only).
Attachments
1. DRAFT ordinance
2. Excerpts from Chapters 5 and 7 of the Comprehensive Plan related to Staging and Growth
3. Urban Services Phasing Plan (Map 5-3 of the Comp Plan)
Staging/Phasing Point System
Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting
Page 2 of 2 June 8, 2010
w
ATTACHMENT 1 - DRAFT ORDINANCE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE TIMING OF GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT TO BE SERVED BY CITY UTILITIES
ADDING SECTION 825.34 TO THE MEDINA ZONING ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 825.34 of the Medina code of ordinances is added as follows:
STAGING OF DEVELOPMENT TO BE SERVED BY CITY UTILITIES
Section 825.34. Staging and Growth.
Subd. 1. Purpose audlntent. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the timing of
growth and development within the city consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Such
regulations are in the public interest to ensure the preservation of the rural heart of the
City and to promote contiguous growth in order to provide efficient and cost-effective
services to residents.
Subd. 2. Urban Services Phasing Plan.
(a) Property shall not be served by city water or sanitary sewer utilities prior to the date
described within the Urban Services Phasing Plan, except as regulated herein.
The Urban Services Phasing Plan, herein referred to as the "Phasing Plan," can be
found within the Comprehensive Plan.
(b) The city council, following consultation of the planning commission, may consider
requests for flexibility to the date which city water and sanitary sewer utility
services are available according to the Phasing Plan, as permitted within the
Comprehensive Plan. Properties shall only be prioritized for early development
when it is determined by the city that a proposed project significantly achieves the
criteria described below in Subd. 4 below.
Subd. 3. Review Process for Phasing Plan Flexibility.
(a) In order for a project to be granted flexibility to the Phasing Plan, the property shall
require rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) district.
(b) The city council shall deny a PUD District Concept Plan application seeking
flexibility to the Phasing Plan, except upon a ending that the proposed project
significantly achieves the criteria identified in Subd. 4 below. The following
represents the minimum standard which must be met in order for the city council
to consider flexibility to the Phasing Plan. The city council shall have the
Ordinance No. ### DRAFT
DATE 06-08-2010 Planning Commission
Coaueett tdij: This hhaguage is very
simulerto the objectives described in the
Comp R
COMM* [d2j: With Qsi, we
determined that occupancy was the
benclanadr. Is occupancy the preferred
benchmark for early development?
Option: be more specific in this
ordinance and state that construction may
not begin (or occupancy droll not occur)
prior to the time descmibed in the Staging
and Growth Plan
Comment [d3]: Owmat language is
included in the draft so that the ordnance
could remain after the City amends the
Cone Plan and perhaps different
timotames are established.
Alternatively, the ordinance could include
specific to the current Comp
Plan: "nay ooneider requests for city
water and sanitary sewer service a
mottos'= of five years prior to the date
described within the Staging and Growth
Plan."
Comment td4]: Language presumes
denial, making flexibility the exception to
the this. AliernatWe language: "A PUD
District Concept Plan requesting
fmrthility to the Phasing Plan shall only
be approved upon a finding that the
proposed pried fly achieves
the characteristics described m Subd. 4
below."
w
discretion to require achievement of additional city objectives during the review
of the PUD.
(1) The crucial factor shall be determined to be achieved.
(2) Forty or more points shall be achieved amongst the various primary and
secondary factors. The city may grant a maxim of ten points for each
prirnatyfactor and a maximum of five points for each secondary factor.
(c) The project proposer shall be responsible to reimburse the city for the costs incurred
by the city in reviewing the PUD, including any additional costs of analyzing the
extent to which the project meets the review criteria for Phasing Plan flexibility.
Subd. 4. Criteria for Reviewing Requests for phasing Plan +%ldbiity
(a) Crucial factor: Infrastructure Capacity.
The city shall review existing sanitary sewer, water, and street infrastructure to
determine if sufficient capacity exists to support both of the following: 1) the
proposed project; and 2) all other development which has been identified in the
Comprehensive Plan for the current Phasing period. If existing capacity is
determined to be insufficient for the proposed project, but the project proposes to
make necessary improvements, the city may give consideration to such proposal,
provided the improvements are constructed at no cost to the city or other property
owners. The improvements shall also be consistent with city infrastructure plans
and policies and be designed to serve other future development when appropriate.
(b) Primary factors (maximum of 10 points per item):
(1) Natural resource protection and low impact development. To achieve this
objective, the project shall incorporate low impact development practices
and exceptional natural resource and ecological preservation. Meeting the
minimum tree preservation and wetland protection regulations shall be
equivalent to one point, with additional points granted for additional
preservation.
(2) Proximity to existing development. To achieve this objective, the project
shall be adjacent to or a short distance from existing development which is
served by city utility services. Property which is immediately adjacent to
existing development shall be granted the most points, with fewer points
granted with increased distance.
Open Space Protection. To achieve this objective, the project shall
permanently protect open space from development. The number of points
granted shall be based on the relative size of the open space area protected
and the ecological value of the open space.
(4) Limited impacts on city services. Points for this objective shall be based
upon the expected need for city services, with fewer points granted for
projects which have a higher potential impact. For example:
(i) Projects which can access regional roadways with limited distance
on city streets would be granted additional points.
(ii) Commercial uses which create lower levels of traffic, particularly
truck traffic, would be granted additional points.
(iii) Commercial uses with lower water usage would be granted
additional points.
(3)
Ordinance No. ###
DATE
2
DRAFT
06-08-2010PC (Before Legal Review)
Comm tt id
�j: Option: inataed of
assigning points, require a minimwn
number oft ecriteriatobemet.
ale:
"(13Ai1 ai c al. actacs ehatl be achieved.
(2) A tm}iiyof Taunt primary
fats atibea cd.
One+nmora cfJherreievani secondary
factas sbaltbe sobieved."
Comment td61:Option: Two
scpandesections keResidentialanti
w
(c) Secondary factors (maximum of 5 points per item):
(1) Sustainability. To achieve this objective, the project shall incorporate
sustainable practices such as high energy efficiency, responsible
construction material and processes, and design which supports multiple
transportation options. A LEED platinum project, or its equivalent, shall
be granted five points.
(2) High quality architectural quality and design. Points may be granted for this
objective for a number of different elements. Meeting the minimum
requirements of the underlying zoning district with regards to building
materials, modulation, and other relevant standards would be equivalent to
one point. Additional elements may include:
(i) Varying home styles within a single-family development.
(ii) Utilization of more high quality building materials, such as brick
and stone, than is required by the underlying zoning district.
(iii)Four-sided architecture.
(3) Community amenities. Points may be granted for this objective based on a
number of different amenities, examples of which include:
(i) Private trails, recreational, or gathering areas
(ii) High quality signage and lighting fixtures, to be maintained by the
property owner(s).
(4) Affordable housing (residential development only). To achieve this
objective, affordability shall be guaranteed by a covenant or similar means
approved by the city. The amount of points granted shall be based on the
level of affordability as well as the proportion of units which are
affordable.
(5) Employment opportunities (commercial/business development only). Points
for this objective shall be based on the number of employees, especially
new positions which will be filled after the user begins operations within
the city.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the city council of the city of Medina this day of , 2010.
T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk
Published in the South Crow River News this day of , 2010.
Ordinance No. ###
DATE 06-08-2010PC (Before Legal Review)
3 DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 2 - Excerpts from Comp Plan (2 pages)
2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan Information (Chapter 5, Land Use and Growth)
Staging Plan
The staging plan is tied to infrastructure plans, including water, wastewater and transportation, to
ensure that services are provided to new residents and businesses in an efficient and cost
effective manner.
The staging plan, Map 5-3, utilizes flexible staging boundaries to direct where and when
development should proceed within the City and is built on the following principles:
• Compact growth will occur along the TH 55 corridor to ensure the preservation of the
rural heart of the City.
■ Growth will proceed in an east -west pattern to develop efficiently the City's
infrastructure, including sewer and water.
• The City shall promote contiguous growth within the urban service areas to provide
efficient and cost-effective services to residents.
• Growth should encompass a balance of land uses to provide residential and business
areas for development throughout the planning period.
• The staging plan identifies staged increments of 5 -year periods and provides some
flexibility between adjacent staging periods. Development shall be limited to a maximum
of one staging increment beyond the existing staging period, and will be tied to an
incentive based points system (see Chapter 7; Growth Strategy, Page 7 — 4).
■ These principles are developed based on known development constraints related to
existing water and sewer infrastructure. When development is proposed, the City will
review the staging plan for consistency with the water and sewer plans attached as
appendices to this document. The following are some of the constraints to be considered
when guiding development:
o There is presently capacity for approximately 160 additional water units through
2009, which needs to include a variety of growth options over the short-term
planning timeline. The construction of additional wells and water storage facility
will increase the availability of water units.
o The City's sewer infrastructure has capacity for approximately 2,000 additional
units that is expected to be adequate through at least 2015.
o The City plans on developing the water system to match the Guide Plan which
stages growth through 2030 and may include the development of a well field in
the western area of the urban service boundary that may allow growth near
Loretto.
o Sewer improvements will be required to meet 2030 projection population growth.
The following table describes the land use allocation by 5 -year staging increments and is a guide
for the City when developing infrastructure and future planning efforts.
w
The staging plan supports the timing and planning for future improvements and recognizes the
existing limitations of water and sewer systems in 2007.
Objectives
■ The constraints on growth
over the planning period
ending in 2030 are related to
water and wastewater
infrastructure capital
improvements. The City shall
develop a capital
improvement plan to address
these needs and to monitor
development and phasing in
an appropriate way.
• The City shall evaluate the
creation of a well field in the
western portion of the urban
service area.
• The City shall develop a
system for evaluating
developments within the
urban service area to help
prioritize developments that
are consistent with the goals
of the City.
• The City will promote low
impact development,
conservation development
and environmentally
sustainable design.
Table 5-F
Land Use In 5 -Year Increments
Resideadglises
-Rural Residential 25 acres a less
Rural Re5dentlai 2 5 -10 acres _... . 1U/10A
Rural Redadentla110-40 acres
- Rurat Residential 110.. acres
-.Agricultural 40acres
Subtotal LMlsewered
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Medium Density Residential (140R(
High Density Residential (HDR)
Mined Use (/40)2
Mined Use - Business (MU -B)'
Future Developing Areas
CournercialUses
C0 11e/ l/C)
General Business (GB)
6Mustnal (18;
Institutions! Uses
Pub9c Semi -Public (PSP)
Parks and Recreation_ . _ . . . _
Parks and Recreation -
Re%IonaVSlale_ - -. . ..
Private Recreation (MEC) _..
Open Space (09) ..._..__
Closed Sarkary Landfill (SL) _
t (aces) (ems( roam
- 212 212 212 212 212
MD, 2197 2207 2217 2227 2137 1-8%
10/40A : 10710A 3591 3661
1U740A =. ; 1977 1897
-. . _ 10140A - 109 109 109 ... 109
8086 8086 9086 8086 : 8086
2 349 346 t 600 713 911 944
3.5 6,9 181 326 428
30 17 . . . . 21 21
3.5 6,9 0 :, 80. 207
5 59 59
1U/10A I 2501 I 1954 1372
246 256 331 362
92 I 92 i 214 375
25
271 I 2
93 93
2519 I 2519
358 358
208 I 208
192 I 192
10 De aereme,ea ate, rw ciusrer,'ope+space aewwpme'fl DOM., r awes of ov .r^- per 1, acre. wit .o oe a owes w'tr+±
M,rppo ,Gn CO✓icd'l!o'a tam, woof service OM .
rtq.rhoam:r.moo- 30% ott',e develop:tne pc:pert x euae++o. campor+en y,.,:n:, me oerui^t range
ire IA a Uu2%res: 150_08 bur use requires ret1aaet:c'von acs wort w me aendty over tie e-nre cevewpao a area. Tre
MU -e ' aA 0.09 anew acreage'e Gates On r. appmw2^.are are: +'tics had Gee^ ,e.00900 co, ,err w'%t^ . Core:1,es of 114 M W_ '0010
3691 3721 3751 !- ,_ 4.5%
1857 1817 1777 •; -10.1%
109
8086
944 57%
31%
486%
374%
428
123
379
59
444 I
362 409 I
480 558 y 507%
68 68
172%
2714 271 t 271 I 0%
93 93 93 ' 0%
2519 2519 ` 2519 I 6%
358 ' 358 358 0%
208 ( 208 208 I 0%
192 192 , 192 j 0%
2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan Information (Chapter 7, Implementation)
Growth Strategy
This Comprehensive Plan creates a growth strategy for the community that will provide direction
to land owners and developers while still allowing flexibility and the City will prioritize
characteristics such as infrastructure availability, architectural quality, LID and LEED building
standards, and natural resource preservation. Based on these criteria the City will assign a value
to proposed developments and either allow them to move forward or to wait based on required
improvements, whether infrastructure related or otherwise.
The City will promote orderly and compact development in its urbanizing areas. To provide
flexibility within each growth area a points system will be established to implement the strategy
including: infrastructure efficiency and availability; east to west orderly development; overall
character and fit within the community; architectural quality; natural resource protection; open
space conservation and community amenities.
\ T V O
_' MACKAMORE Map c� .
Map 5-3 MEDINA
Staging and Growth
Urban Services Phasing Plan
Mg Developed 2008
2001-2010
2011-2015
2016-2020
2021-2025
® 2026-2030
Developing Post -2030
No Urban Services Planned
Met Council LTSSA
There are several critical infrastructure
milestones that will control growth including:
- The existing water infrastructure has
capacity of approximately 160 units
available until 2009.
- The sewer constraints shall limit
development to 2,000 units without
improvements.
Generally, the Phasing Plan demonstrates
that development shall proceed in a east to
west pattern. This phasing plan allows
flexibility between adjacent phases to allow
for proper infrastructure planning and
development.
The Grey area reflects the area identified by
the City to be developed Post 2030.
The Met Council has identified the LTSSA
for potential future access to urban services.
No services are planned during the timeframe
covered by this Plan.
Adopted: November 17, 2009
Parcel current as of October 2006
UTM, Zone 15N, NAD 83
Scale: 1:30,000