The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About03.05.19 - City Council Complete Meeting Packet Posted 2/28/2019 Page 1 of 2 AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 5, 2019 7:00 P.M. Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the February 19, 2019 Special Council Meeting B. Minutes of the February 19, 2019 Regular Council Meeting V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Renewal of Consumption and Display Permit for American Legion Post 394 at 75 Hamel Road B. Resolution Accepting Resignation of Planning Intern Nick Kieser C. Ordinance Adopting an Amended Fee Schedule D. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Fee Schedule Ordinance by Title and Summary E. Approve Closure of City Hall on Friday, July 5, 2019 VI. COMMENTS A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda B. Park Commission C. Planning Commission VII. PRESENTATION A. Fire Department Annual Reports VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Toll MN L.P. – 764 Aster Road – Easement Vacation Request – Public Hearing 1. Resolution Vacating a Portion of the Drainage and Utility Easements within 764 Aster Road B. Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District Standards 1. Ordinance Amending the Regulations of the Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code 2. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and Summary C. Rezoning for Consistency with 2040 Comprehensive Plan 1. Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Various Properties for Consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan 2. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and Summary D. Theisen – 3325 County Road 24 – Conditional Use Permit for Construction of Accessory Structures Exceeding 5,000 Square Feet E. Raskob – 3240 Carriage Drive – RR1 Side Yard Setback Request 1. Ordinance Amending the Side Yard Setback Requirement of the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code 2. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and Summary IX. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution Granting Extension of Time to Record the Woods of Medina Plat; Amending Resolution No. 2018-44 X. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Meeting Rules of Conduct:  Fill out and turn in white comment card  Give name and address  Indicate if representing a group  Limit remarks to 3-5 minutes Posted 2/28/2019 Page 2 of 2 XI. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS XII. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS XIII. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Medina City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: February 28, 2019 DATE OF MEETING: March 5, 2019 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Renewal of Consumption and Display Permit for American Legion Post 394 at 75 Hamel Road – The proper paperwork and fees have been submitted. Staff recommends approval. No attachments for this item. B. Resolution Accepting Resignation of Planning Intern Nick Kieser –Planning Intern Nick Kieser has accepted a full-time planning position with the City of Wayzata. Mr. Kieser did an excellent job for Medina and we wish him the best of luck with his future endeavors. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. C. Ordinance Adopting an Amended Fee Schedule – The ordinance revises the city’s fee schedule to include fees for Clean-Up Day, changes to fees for the Hamel Community Building rentals, ROW registration fees, and other fee schedule clarifications. Staff recommends approval. See attached ordinance. D. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Fee Schedule Ordinance by Title and Summary – The resolution provides for summary publication of the fee schedule changes. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. E. Approve Closure of City Hall on Friday, July 5, 2019 – I recommend closing City offices to the public on Friday, July 5, 2019 and allow employees the choice to come into work on that day or take the day off using accumulated leave (floating holiday, vacation, or compensatory time off). The majority of staff members have requested Friday, July 5, 2019 as a day off. This is due to the July 4th Holiday falling on a Thursday in 2019. Staff recommends approval. See attached memo. 2 VII. PRESENTATIONS A. Fire Department Annual Reports – All four fire departments that provide service to Medina will be present to provide their 2018 Annual Reports. No attachments for this item. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Toll MN – 764 Aster Road – Easement Vacation Request - Public Hearing – Toll MN L.P. (Toll Brothers) has requested to relocate a drainage and utility easement running through the rear yard of 764 Aster Road. The applicant proposes to shift the location of the easement three feet north of its current location within the lot. The home was constructed within two feet of the easement and a deck cannot be constructed on the home. The replacement easement would be five feet north of the home to allow construction of a narrow deck. See attached report. Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution vacating a portion of the drainage and utility easements within 764 Aster Road B. Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District Standards – On December 11, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning of various parcels intended to make the zoning consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan. During the hearing, concern was raised related to the rezoning of two parcels northwest of the intersection of County Road 116 and Meander Road to the Commercial-Highway (CH) zoning district. Concerns were raised related to potential impacts of more intensive commercial development on nearby residential property. One of the alternatives discussed was zoning the parcels as Commercial-Neighborhood (CN), which is generally a less intensive district. This alternative was discussed at the February 12 Planning Commission meeting. Staff had discussions with residents who originally raised concerns at the December meeting. The same concerns were generally not raised for the CN district. See attached report. Recommended Motion #1: Adopt ordinance amending the regulations of the Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code Recommended Motion #2: Adopt resolution authorizing the publication of ordinance by title and summary C. Rezoning for Consistency with 2040 Comprehensive Plan – The City is required to review and make appropriate changes to its official controls based on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, including zoning regulations, within nine months of the updated Plan being in effect. The Implementation Chapter (7) of the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan describes the changes the City anticipated needing to make because of various changes in the Plan. 3 These changes included the rezoning of certain properties which were changed within the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is requesting the rezoning of these properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. See attached report. Recommended Motion #1: Adopt Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Various Properties for Consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Recommended Motion #2: Adopt resolution authorizing the publication of ordinance by title and summary D. Theisen – 3325 County Road 24 – Conditional Use Permit for Construction of Accessory Structures Exceeding 5,000 Square Feet – The applicants request a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a horse barn with an indoor riding arena, future building, and two lean-tos on their property at 3325 County Road 24. Section 825.19 states that on residential properties more than 5 acres in area, a conditional use permit is required for more than two accessory buildings or for accessory buildings which exceed an aggregate of 5,000 square feet in size. The purpose of a CUP is to allow the City Council to impose conditions on the use which it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. See attached report. Recommended Motion: Direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the CUP, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. E. Raskob – 3240 Carriage Drive – RR1 Side Yard Setback Request – Brian and Christine Raskob, 3240 Carriage Drive, have requested that the City consider reducing the minimum side yard setback for lots over 5 acres in size within the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) zoning district from 50 feet to 20 feet. See attached report. Recommended Motion #1: Adopt Ordinance Amending the Side Yard Setback Requirement of the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code Recommended Motion #2: Adopt resolution authorizing the publication of ordinance by title and summary IX. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution Granting Extension of Time to Record the Woods of Medina Plat; Amending Resolution No. 2018-44 – Usually this resolution would go on the consent agenda, but it is under “Old Business”, because Councilmember Jeff Pederson has an interest in the project and will need to recuse himself from the vote. See attached resolution. 4 Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution granting extension of time to record the Woods of Medina Plat; amending resolution no. 2018-44 XII. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 004981E-004999E for $66,444.72 and order check numbers 048494-048554 for $167,105.65 and payroll EFT 0509259-0509285 for $54,152.50. INFORMATION PACKET:  Planning Department Update  Police Department Update  Public Works Department Update  Claims List Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 1 February 19, 2019 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2019 - draft The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in special session on February 19, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. at the Medina City Hall, 2052 County Road 24, Medina, MN. I. Call to Order Members present: Martin, Anderson, Pederson, DesLauriers, Albers Members absent: Also present: Suzie Sween Hamel Lions, City Administrator Scott Johnson, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, City Engineer Jim Stremel, Public Safety Director Ed Belland, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, and City Attorney Ron Batty II. Open Meeting Law Training – Ron Batty City Attorney Ron Batty provided information on the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Council and Commissioners discussed e-mail communication, the types of public meetings and other topics with Batty. III. Review Hamel Community Building Fees Staff provided information on the Hamel Community Building’s expenses and revenues, fee comparisons with other area municipal facilities, and background on the facility. Suzie Sween from the Hamel Lions was able to provide further background on the rental fees for the Hamel Community Building. Council directed staff to move forward with the proposed amended fee schedule and to increase Saturday and Sunday evenings from $350 to $400 and to increase the alcohol usage charge from $50 to $100. Staff will bring the directed changes to the March 5th City Council Meeting. Adjournment Martin closed the meeting at 7:04 p.m. _________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: ____________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1 February 19, 2019 DRAFT 1 2 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2019 3 4 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on February 19, 2019 at 5 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6 7 I. ROLL CALL 8 9 Members present: Albers, Anderson, DesLauriers, Martin, and Pederson. 10 11 Members absent: None. 12 13 Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, City Attorney Ron Batty, City Engineer 14 Jim Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, 15 and Chief of Police Ed Belland. 16 17 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:00 p.m.) 18 19 III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:00 p.m.) 20 The agenda was approved as presented. 21 22 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:00 p.m.) 23 24 A. Approval of the February 5, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 25 Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the February 5, 2019 regular 26 City Council meeting minutes as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 27 28 V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:02 p.m.) 29 30 A. Approve Hamel Legion Park Concession Services Agreement with CJS, 31 LLC 32 B. Approve Job Description for Public Works Foreman and Authorize Internal 33 Recruitment 34 C. Approve Job Description, Authorize Recruitment and Hiring of Seasonal 35 Public Works Technician 36 D. Resolution No. 2019-05 Accepting Donation from Hamel Lions Club 37 E. Resolution No. 2019-06 Supporting Transportation Funding 38 F. Approve Agreement by and between the City of Medina and U.S. Home 39 Corporation 40 Pederson referenced the public works foreman job description and suggested that the 41 language be changed for consistency. 42 43 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Anderson, to approve the consent agenda. Motion 44 passed unanimously. 45 46 VI. COMMENTS (7:04 p.m.) 47 48 A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 49 Martin commended and congratulated Sue Vancleaf, who has reported for City matters 50 for 16 years, for the recent awards that she has received. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2 February 19, 2019 1 B. Park Commission 2 Park Commissioner Weir stated that the Commission has been reviewing the 2019 goals 3 and revising the trail plan. She stated that the main goal for 2019 is to gain resident 4 support to adequately finance the municipal park fund to fund necessary capital park 5 replacements as the park assets depreciate. She stated that $112,000 is needed each 6 year in order to fund future park equipment replacement and maintain the parks in a 7 functional and safe condition. She stated that the Park Commission is proposing to hold 8 a series of small neighborhood park meetings within the parks to meet and engage 9 residents. 10 11 Pederson commented that the timing that is being created will be good and stated that 12 this seems to be a good plan to engage residents. 13 14 DesLauriers agreed that this is a fantastic idea to engage people out in the community 15 and educate them on the costs for replacement of the equipment. 16 17 Weir confirmed the consensus of the Council for the Park Commission to continue the 18 plan for public engagement. 19 20 C. Planning Commission 21 Planning Commissioner Neilson stated that the Planning Commission met the previous 22 week and received public input regarding night lighting. She stated that the Commission 23 unanimously recommended approval of the Commercial Neighborhood zoning district, 24 which is a lower intensity than Commercial Highway and will account for two parcels 25 proposed for rezoning. She stated that the Commission also considered the rezoning of 26 the 35 properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, noting that the 27 Commission recommended approval of 30 of the 35 properties. She stated that the 28 Commission reviewed a Conditional Use Permit for four accessory structures and 29 recommended approval with certain conditions. She reported that the Commission also 30 reviewed a proposed amendment to the Rural Residential RR-1 zoning district, and 31 unanimously recommended approval to amend the side yard setback. 32 33 Finke stated that there were additional public comments regarding a property located at 34 Highway 55 and Willow Drive, specifically regarding the delayed staging, and noted that 35 the property owner will work with staff to investigate options. 36 37 VII. NEW BUSINESS 38 39 A. Brockton Lane Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project – Public Hearing 40 (7:18 p.m.) 41 Josh Eckstein, Bolton & Menk, reviewed the project timeline and the proposed project 42 area. He stated that the sanitary sewer component will be at the north end of the project 43 area and will be staged into halves. He provided details on the elements of the sanitary 44 sewer project and reviewed the proposed project cost. He reviewed the project 45 financing which includes use of the sewer fund as well as special assessments against 46 the benefiting properties. He reviewed the assessment policy and noted an estimated 47 assessment amount of $5,375 per unit which is based on the engineer’s estimate and 48 will change based on the bids received. He noted that if approved tonight, the bids 49 would be opened on March 21st, with a substantial completion date of October, and 50 certification of the assessment role in November. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3 February 19, 2019 1 DesLauriers asked for clarification on the number of properties and the number of units. 2 3 Eckstein replied that there are seven homes and six units, explaining that one home has 4 a house and garage that lie on two properties but have only one sewer connection. 5 6 Anderson asked which City would make the ultimate decision on the bids. 7 8 Scherer replied that the sanitary sewer project is solely located in Medina and therefore 9 Medina would make that decision. 10 11 Eckstein noted that one unit is within Plymouth and would be assessed for the project. 12 13 Pederson asked if there have been comments from residents on the proposed 14 assessment amount. 15 16 Eckstein replied that he has not yet received comments. 17 18 Scherer stated that he spoke with some residents at the open house and believed most 19 of the residents are aware. 20 21 Pederson asked if the contractor would be charged if they exceed the project timeline. 22 23 Eckstein replied that the standard liquidated damage language would be contained 24 within the contract. 25 26 Scherer asked if the final lift would be completed this fall or whether that would be 27 delayed to the spring. 28 29 Eckstein replied that the final lift will occur in the fall, which will protect the curb and 30 gutter. 31 32 Martin opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. 33 34 No comments made. 35 36 Martin closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. 37 38 1. Resolution No. 2019-07 Ordering the 2019 Brockton Lane Sanitary 39 Sewer Improvement Project, Approving Plans and Specifications, 40 and Ordering Advertisement for Bids 41 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Anderson, to Adopt Resolution No. 2019-07 Ordering 42 the 2019 Brockton Lane Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project, Approving Plans and 43 Specifications, and Ordering Advertisement for Bids. Motion passed unanimously. 44 45 B. Hickory Drive Street and Utility Improvement Project (7:33 p.m.) 46 Stremel stated that an update was included in the Council packet, noting that the project 47 details have not changed much. He stated that the grant funding was secured for 2019 48 and therefore City staff recommends proceeding with construction in 2019. He stated 49 that the property owner has signed the agreement for property acquisition and the next 50 step would be to sign the documents for easements. He discussed the possibility of 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4 February 19, 2019 electronic bidding and noted that a draft bidding policy was included in the Council 1 packet. He reviewed the benefits of using the electronic bid process including ensuring 2 complete bids, better accuracy, automatic tabulation of the bids when opening, and 3 maximizing the potential number of bidders. 4 5 DesLauriers asked if the digital process would exclude some bidders that are not able to 6 submit electronic bids. 7 8 Stremel stated that this process is not much different than what contractors are doing 9 today. He explained how contractors update their own spreadsheet document, noting 10 that this bidding process provides that spreadsheet which becomes more efficient rather 11 than requiring bidders to handwrite the bids on the form. He stated that it could be 12 possible that smaller contractors that do not have good connection to the internet may 13 be excluded. He noted that this is a larger project and therefore the contractors that 14 would be bidding would most likely have sufficient internet connection. He noted that 15 bidders do not need to be present at the bid opening and there is no additional cost for 16 this electronic format. He suggested using electronic bidding for this project as a trial 17 and noted that the Council could then consider the draft language for a policy in the 18 future. 19 20 Martin referenced specific language in the proposed resolution that should be amended 21 to allow electronic bidding. 22 23 Johnson noted that the policy does not have to be adopted tonight, this project could be 24 used as a trial. 25 26 Batty stated that it was his suggestion that this process be used as a trial for the process 27 and if liked, the policy could be drafted. 28 29 Albers asked the amount of time that would be saved on the review after bids are 30 received. 31 32 Stremel estimated that several hours would be saved with this process, as the tabulation 33 is instantly provided when opening the bids. 34 35 1. Resolution No. 2019-08 Approving Plans and Specifications for the 36 Hickory Drive Street and Utility Improvement Project and Ordering 37 the Advertisement for Bids 38 Moved by Martin, seconded by Pederson, to Adopt Resolution No. 2019-08 Approving 39 Plans and Specifications for the Hickory Drive Street and Utility Improvement Project 40 and Ordering the Advertisement for Bids, amending section two of the resolution, striking 41 the last sentence and replacing it with, “no bids will be considered unless filed in 42 accordance with the instructions set forth in the instructions to bidders and accompanied 43 by all the materials required by such instructions”. Motion passed unanimously. 44 45 VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (7:54 p.m.) 46 Johnson reminded Council that the Uptown Hamel Open House is scheduled to take 47 place the following night at 5:00 p.m. 48 49 Anderson asked if there are contingency plans with the forecasted weather. 50 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5 February 19, 2019 Finke clarified that there are three open house meetings, with the intent that the input 1 received at each open house would help guide the format of the next open house 2 meeting. 3 4 IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (7:55 p.m.) 5 DesLauriers stated that he attended the West Metro Drug Task Force meeting on 6 February 14th and commended the group for the great work they continue to do. 7 8 Pederson stated that he received a call from a resident regarding tree plantings and 9 location and noted that he spoke with Scherer to follow up. 10 11 X. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (7:56 p.m.) 12 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Anderson, to approve the bills, EFT 004967E-13 004980E for $47,627.60 and order check numbers 048458-048493 for $313,006.54 and 14 payroll EFT 0509227-0509258 for $54,059.49. Motion passed unanimously. 15 16 XI. ADJOURN 17 Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to adjourn the meeting at 7:57 p.m. 18 Motion passed unanimously. 19 20 21 __________________________________ 22 Kathy Martin, Mayor 23 Attest: 24 25 ____________________________________ 26 Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 27 Resolution No. 2019- March 5, 2019 Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF PLANNING INTERN NICK KIESER WHEREAS, Nick Kieser is currently employed as the Planning Intern in the Planning Department of the city of Medina; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2019, Nick Kieser submitted a letter of resignation from his position addressed to the City of Medina Staff and City Council Members; and WHEREAS, Nick Kieser’s resignation from his position shall become effective immediately. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that Nick Kieser’s letter of resignation is hereby accepted. Dated: March 5, 2019. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _________ upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Agenda Item # 5B Resolution No. 2019- 2 March 5, 2019 Exhibit A February 15, 2019 2052 County Road 24 Medina, Minnesota 55340 Dear City of Medina Staff and City Council Members, I have decided to submit my formal resignation to start a full-time position with the City of Wayzata effective March 1st, 2019. I believe this will be the best step as I move forward in my planning career and finish my education. I have learned a great deal during my time with the City of Medina. I am extremely grateful to the City staff, City Council members and the Planning Commission members for helping me to gain experience in the city planning field. The skills that I learned while I was a planning intern was a primary reason why I was offered this next position. Along with the professional experience, I have gained meaningful relationships that have made my time working at Medina truly special. Thankfully, I will still be able to build upon the relationships that I have in Medina as I continue to work on the Uptown Hamel project. I want to thank everyone for the opportunity to work for the City of Medina and to be apart of the amazing staff that Medina has. Sincerely, Nick Kieser Ordinance No. March 5, 2019 CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDED FEE SCHEDULE The city council of the city of Medina ordains as follows: Section 1. The 2019 schedule of fees and rates is hereby amended by deleting the stuck through and adding the underlined text as follows: 2019 Fees Surcharge – noncompliance w/ stormwater prohibition from sanitary sewer $100.00 per month Annual ROW Registration Fee $100.00 per year Credit Card Payments Credit Card fees apply; plus $0.50 if less than $100 (excluding utility and HCB payments) Clean-up Day Fees See Exhibit A Hamel Community Building Fees See Exhibit B Tennis Court Rental Fee $20 per court per hour* *This fee may be negotiated through a separate group rental agreement, which must be approved by the Medina City Council Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Medina this ____ day of March, 2019. _____________________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News this ___ day of ______, 2019. Agenda Item # 5C Ordinance No. March 5, 2019 Exhibit A The schedule of fees for collecting the following items and materials and acquisition of trees from the Annual City Clean-up Day shall be: Accepted Items: • Scrap Metal .............................................................................. No Charge • Batteries ................................................................................... No Charge • Anti-freeze ............................................................................... No Charge • Computer Tower/Laptop/Small Handheld Device....………...No Charge • Small Kitchen Appliances…………………………………… No Charge • Large Appliances …………………………………………… . …$5 each • Miscellaneous Electronics …………………………………. $5 -10 each • Computer Monitor……………………………………………... $10 each • Televisions (small)……………………………………………...$10 each • Televisions (large flat screen – 27” on up)……………………. $15 each • Televisions (large tube style – 27” on up) ……………………. $25 each • Counsel & Projection TVs………………………………………$50 each • Mattress/Box springs .............................................................. …$50 each • Tires – car……………………………………… .. ………...........$5 each • Tires – truck – with or without rim ............................................... $5 each • Tires – semi truck – without rim ................................................. $10 each • Tires – semi truck – with rim………………………………….. $15 each • Tires – tractor ........................ $25.00 small/$45.00 medium/$60.00 large • Dumping by volume (i.e. carpet, furniture/building materials) ……………………………………$10 small load - up to $30 large load Purchase of Trees: • Red Maple …………………………………………………………...$15 • Emerald Lustre Maple……………………………………………… $15 • River Birch………………………………………………………….. $15 • Sugar Maple ........................................................................................ $15 • Autumn Blaze………………………………………………………..$15 • Honey Locust………………………………………………………...$15 • Redmond Linden…………………………………………. ............. .. $15 • Northern Pin Oak ……………………………………………………$15 • Northern Red Oak……………………………………………………$15 Ordinance No. March 5, 2019 Exhibit B Hamel Community Building Fee Schedule - 2019 Group Time Period Rental Rate Medina Public Service Groups Anytime N/A City Approved Medina Civic or Non-profit Groups ■ Anytime N/A ■ Monday to Friday Thursday All Day $190 Monday to Friday Thursday < 4 Hours $100 Monday to Thursday < 1.5 Hours $50 Friday All Day $250 Sat. and Sun. Afternoons (7 am to 2 pm) < 4 Hours $150 200^ Sat. and Sun. Evenings (3 pm to Midnight) 3 pm - Midnight $350 400 Sat. and Sun. Evenings (3 pm to Midnight) 4 Hour Minimum $250 ^ Sat. and Sun. All Day Rate All Day $450 Overnight Events* (10 pm to 8 am) All Night $150 Alcohol Usage* All Day $50 100 Facility walk-through required: First one is free, if you miss appointment or need another one, each additional walk- through: Scheduled $25 Appointment with vendor to view facility prior to event Scheduled $25 Sales Tax Included in all fees. Kitchen Service Area and Outdoor Shelter use included in all fees. ■ City Approved Civic or Non-profit Groups or public events can receive one free use per month and any additional will be charged at full rates. ^ $55 per hour for additional hours over the 4 hour time slot (only allowed up to 3 pm to keep evening rental available) * in addition to base fee Community Building Security Deposit ○ Time Period Security Deposit Rate Medina Public Service Groups - Any Day Anytime N/A City Approved Medina Civic or Non-profit Groups - Any Day Anytime $100 Any Day Anytime $250 Any Day w/ Alcohol or Dance Anytime $500 ○ This fee is to cover any damage to the facility, extra clean-up, or cancellation of event without 3 weeks notice. Resolution No. 2019- March 5, 2019 Member ____________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ___ BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ___ regarding revisions of the city’s fee schedule; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, § 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the City C lerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ____ to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice The city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ____. The ordinance revises the city’s fee schedule to include fees for Clean-Up Day, changes to fees for the Hamel Community Building rentals, ROW registration fees, and other fee schedule clarifications. The ordinance will not be codified. The full text of Ordinance No. ___ is available for inspection at Medina city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the City Clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Dated: March 5, 2019. Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Agenda Item # 5D Resolution No. 2019- March 5, 2019 2 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: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE: February 26, 2019 SUBJ: Request to Close City Hall on July 5, 2019 BACKGROUND The July 4th Holiday falls on a Thursday in 2019. The majority of staff members have requested Friday, July 5, 2019 as a day off. I am requesting City offices be closed to the public on Friday, July 5, 2019. Under the Personnel Policy, the City Administrator may at their discretion close City offices to the public on December 24th (Christmas Eve) or December 26th with public notice if enough employees request off. I am requesting the same authority for Friday, July 5, 2019. Employees will be given the choice to come into work on that day or take the day off using accumulated leave (floating holiday, vacation, or compensatory time off). REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION A motion to close City offices to the public on Friday, July 5, 2019 and allow employees the choice to come into work on that day or take the day off using accumulated leave (floating holiday, vacation, or compensatory time off). Agenda Item # 5E Toll MN LP – 764 Aster Rd Page 1 of 2 March 5, 2019 Easement Vacation City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: February 27, 2019 MEETING: March 5, 2019 City Council SUBJ: Public Hearing – Easement Vacation – 764 Aster Road Summary of Request Toll MN L.P. (Toll Brothers) has requested to relocate a drainage and utility easement running through the rear yard of 764 Aster Road. The applicant proposes to shift the location of the easement three feet north of its current location within the lot. The home was constructed within two feet of the easement and a deck cannot be constructed on the home. The replacement easement would be five feet north of the home to allow construction of a narrow deck. The attached survey shows the location of the home, the easement proposed to be vacated (cross- hatched) and the replacement easement (in red). The easement was dedicated to the public in the Reserve of Medina plat. In order to relocate the easement, the formal process requires the owner to request that the City vacate the existing easement, which could then be replaced with a new easement. A stormwater pipe runs through the easement, draining from the lot to the west (774 Aster Road), through the subject property, and through the lot to the east (754 Aster Road) before connecting to another pipe. Surface water also drains from west to east through the easement. Both the pipe and the surface drainage would be contained within the “replacement” easement three feet further to the north. Analysis According to Minnesota Statute 462.358 subd. 7: “The governing body of a municipality may vacate any publicly owned utility easement…which are not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets…” According to Minnesota Statutes 412.851, “The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. No vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice.” Agenda Item # 8A Toll MN LP – 764 Aster Rd Page 2 of 2 March 5, 2019 Easement Vacation City Council Meeting The drainage and utility easement is currently being utilized for surface drainage and also for a stormwater pipe underground. However, the applicant proposes to replace the easement with an easement of the same width three feet to the north. Public Works and Engineering have reviewed the request and believe the proposed replacement easement three feet further to the north would also satisfactorily serve the drainage purposes of the easement. Staff did not support shifting the easement much further because doing so may make it difficult to access the stormwater pipe in the future. As proposed, staff does not oppose the requested variance, provided a replacement easement is provided. Potential Action Notice was published and mailed for a public hearing on the vacation at the March 5 Council meeting. Staff received a couple of calls after sending notice, but no concerns were raised. Following the hearing, if the Council finds it in the public interest to vacate the easement (subject to receiving a replacement easement of the same width), the follow motion would be appropriate: Move to adopt the resolution vacating a portion of the drainage and utility easements within 764 Aster Road Attachments 1. Resolution vacating a portion of the drainage and utility easements within 764 Aster Road 2. Survey 3. List of Documents Resolution No. 2019-## DATE Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-## RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WITHIN 764 ASTER ROAD WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Toll MN L.P. (the “Applicant”) owns property within the City at 764 Aster Road (the “Property”) which is legally described as: Lot 2, Block 2, Reserve of Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, drainage and utility easements were dedicated to the public over certain portions of the Property on the plat of Reserve of Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to relocate the portion of the drainage and utility easement located in the middle of the rear yard three feet to the north; and WHEREAS, to effectuate this relocation, the Applicant has requested that the City vacate the portion of the drainage and utility easement described in Exhibit A and proposes to grant a replacement easement three feet further north; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.851, the City scheduled a public hearing to consider the proposed vacation; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was posted, published in the official newspaper and mailed to the owners of affected properties, all in accordance with law; and WHEREAS, the City held the public hearing on the proposed vacation on March 5, 2019, at which hearing all interested parties were heard; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City determined that the vacation of a portion of the right-of-way is in the public interest, subject to certain terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of M edina, Minnesota as follows: 1. Subject to the Applicant granting a replacement easement three feet to the north, the City hereby declares that the portion of the drainage and utility easement described in Exhibit A is vacated. Resolution No. 2019-## 2 DATE 2. The city administrator or his designee is authorized and directed to prepare and present to the Hennepin County Auditor a notice that the City has completed these vacation proceedings and record with Hennepin County Registrar of Titles the vacation of the right-of-way described in Exhibit A only after the Applicant has granted a replacement easement as described herein. Dated: ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City 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: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2019-## 3 DATE EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Vacated Drainage and Utility Easement Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Sketch 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100, Blaine, MN 55449 Phone: 763-489-7900 Fax: 763-489-7959 ENVIRONMENTAL ◦ ENGINEERING ◦ SURVEYINGf: \ j o b s \ 5 0 2 1 - 5 0 4 0 \ 5 0 3 6 - r e s e r v e o f m e d i n a \ c a d \ s u r v e y \ 5 0 3 6 . 0 0 4 d e s c r i p t i o n s k e t c h a n d v a c a t i o n . d w g Sa v e D a t e : 02 / 0 8 / 1 9 2/28/2019 Project: LR-19-244 – 764 Aster Rd. Easement Vacationi The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 2/7/2019 2/7/2019 3 Application Y Deposit 2/7/2019 2/6/2019 1 Deposit Y $2000 Survey-proposed vacation 2/8/2019 2/8/2019 1 Survey-Vacation Y Survey-proposed replacement easement 2/8/2019 2/8/2019 1 Survey-Easement Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Notice 2/22/2019 6 Notice 8 pages w/ affidavit and list City Council report 2/27/2019 2 CouncilReport 7 pages w/ attachments Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 March 5, 2019 Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: February 27, 2019 MEETING: March 5, 2019 City Council SUBJ: Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District Standards Background On December 11, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning of various parcels intended to make the zoning consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan. During the hearing, concern was raised related to the rezoning of two parcels at the northwest of the intersection of County Road 116 and Meander Road to the Commercial-Highway (CH) zoning district. Concerns were raised related to potential impacts of more intensive commercial development on nearby residential property. One of the alternatives discussed was zoning the parcels as Commercial-Neighborhood (CN), which is generally a less intensive district. This alternative was discussed at the February 12 Planning Commission meeting. Staff had discussions with residents who originally raised concerns at the December meeting. The same concerns were generally not raised for the CN district. Minutes from both hearings are attached for reference. Currently, no property in the City is zoned as CN. In anticipation of applying the district to the property noted above, staff discussed potential amendments to the ordinance with interested parties. Potential Amendments The attached ordinance includes potential amendments to the CN district which were identified to address some of the concerns discussed at the public hearing in December. Removal of Auto Retail as Conditional Use One of the primary differences between the CN and CH districts is that CN excludes some more intensive uses, including various uses related to automobiles. However, Auto Repair is listed as an allowed Conditional Use. Staff believes this use is similar to some of the other uses which are not permitted, and that it may be advisable to remove it as well. The attached ordinance would delete the use at the bottom of page 1. Allowance for Existing Single-Family Homes One of the concerns raised at the hearing related to the rezoning of the properties at the northeast corner of CR116 and Meander was applying a commercial zoning designation to property that currently contains a home. Agenda Item # 8B Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 March 5, 2019 Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District City Council Meeting Nonconformity protections would allow any residential use to be continued, maintained, improved, and replaced, regardless of the zoning of the property or any language within the zoning district. However, expanding a residential use (such as an addition) would not be allowed for a nonconforming use. Staff has suggested language which would provide additional protections for existing single- family homes which would also allow for additions/expansions (lower portion of page 2). Buffer Yard Requirements The City has existing requirements related to buffer yards between developments and adjacent lower intensity land uses. A buffer yard is a combination of landscaping, berming, and/or increased setbacks intended to reduce impacts between different land uses. Staff has suggested adding bufferyard requirements between CN property and low density residential uses. This language is on pages 4-5 of the ordinance. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the February 12 meeting. An excerpt from the draft minutes is attached for reference. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance. Potential Action If the City Council concurs with the proposed amendments, the following actions would be appropriate: 1. Move to adopt the ordinance amending the requirements of the Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. 2. Move to adopt the resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance by title and summary. Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Resolution authorizing publication by title and summary 3. Excerpt from December 2018 Planning Commission minutes 4. Except from draft February 12, 2019 Planning Commission minutes Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL-NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 838.4 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows: SECTION 838.4 – COMMERCIAL-NEIGHBORHOOD (CN) DISTRICT Section 838.4.01 Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) - Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial- Neighborhood (CN) district is to provide a zoning district for a mix of lower intensity retail and service businesses within proximity of residential zoning districts which provide services primarily for local residents. Development shall include high quality and attractive building materials and architectural design as well as extensive landscaping in order to relate with the residential surroundings and limit impacts on surrounding land uses. Development shall be integrated and coordinated in a way to most efficiently utilize site improvements and to protect the natural environment. Section 838.4.02. (CN) Permitted Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the CN district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Essential services (2) Office Uses (3) Parks and open space (4) Public Services (5) Retail Uses, except the following are not permitted uses: pawn shops, pet stores, and adult establishments. (6) Service Uses, except for the following: hospitals; veterinarian clinics; adult establishments; services related to automobiles; and services delivered off-site, including but not limited to building/lawn contractors, electrical and other skills trades and pest control. Section 838.4.03. (CN) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted within the CN district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in Section 838.5.08, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Automobile Repair, Oil Lubrication Service Shops, Auto Body Shops (2)(1) Indoor Recreational Uses, including but not limited to bowling alleys, dance halls, movie theaters, and live entertainment. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.65", No bullets ornumbering Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE (3)(2) Retail and service uses which include the keeping of animals on-site such as pet stores, veterinarian clinics, animal day cares, animal boarding, commercial kennels and similar uses. Section 838.4.04. (CN) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within the CN district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use: (1) Off-street parking and loading (2) Outdoor dining and/or drinking areas, subject to the requirements established in Section 838.5.08. (3) Outdoor display of goods used in conjunction with and on the same site as the permitted use or conditional use, subject to the requirements established in Section 838.5.08. (4) Outdoor recreational sports courts, subject to a conditional use permit and the requirements established in Section 838.5.08. (5) Seasonal Flea Market or Farmers Market, subject to an administrative review of compliance with the requirements established in Section 838.5.08. (6) Signs, subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance (7) Temporary Outdoor Sales Events, subject to an administrative review of compliance with the requirements established in Section 838.5.08. (8) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code. Section 838.4.05. Interim Uses. Within the CN district, single family detached dwellings existing prior to [the effective date of this ordinance] shall be a permitted interim use. Such use shall be allowed without obtaining an interim use permit until such time as the property is redeveloped. Subd. 1. The interim use may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement until such time as the property is redeveloped. Subd. 2. An increase in the size of the interim use by 30 percent or less shall not be considered an expansion and shall not require an interim use permit. Expansion of the use or improvement of the property in an amount greater than 30 percent of its current size shall be permitted only by interim use permit. Subd. 3. If an interim use is damaged or destroyed by fire, storm, or other hazard, it may be reconstructed without obtaining an interim use permit if a building permit is applied for within 720 days of the event causing the damage. Section 838.4.0506. (CN) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. Minimum Lot Size: One acre. The minimum lot size may be reduced to 0.5 acre if the lot is part of an integrated development utilizing shared improvements such as parking and stormwater management, as approved by the City. Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.31", Hanging: 0.31" Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE Subd. 2. Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet Subd. 3. Minimum Lot Depth: 120 feet Subd. 4. A lot of record, which existed on or before December 31, 1999, and has one or more of the following characteristics shall be considered buildable, without requiring a variance, provided all other relevant provisions of the ordinance are met: (a) Less than the required lot size (b) Less than the required lot width (c) Less than the required lot depth Subd. 5. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 30 feet Subd. 6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 25 feet Subd. 7. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback: 15 feet Subd. 8. Street Setbacks: A required yard setback adjacent to a public or private street shall be increased based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (a) Local Roadway: 30 feet (b) Minor Collector Roadway: 35 feet (c) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet Subd. 9. Minimum Residential Setback: Any setback adjacent to a residential zoning district shall be increased to 40 feet. Subd. 10. Minimum Railroad Setback: A required yard setback adjacent to a railroad right- of-way may be reduced to zero, except as necessary for safety, fire access, or utility purposes. Subd. 11. Minimum Parking Setbacks: Parking stalls, parking aisles and fire lanes may encroach within the yard setbacks required by this section, but shall be located the following distances from property lines: (a) Front Yard: 25 feet (b) Rear and Interior Side Yard: 5 feet, except to accommodate shared/joint parking across a common lot line. (c) Side Yard, if adjacent to street: 25 feet (d) Residential Zoning District: 40 feet Subd. 12. Maximum Impervious Surface: Impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 70 percent of the entire lot. Additionally, excluding wetlands and stormwater ponds, no more than 80 percent of the remaining lot shall be covered with impervious surfaces. Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE Section 838.4.0607. (CN) Design and Development Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. Maximum Building Size: No structure shall exceed 20,000 square feet of floor area. Subd. 2. Maximum Building Height: Building height shall not exceed 35 feet. In the case that a structure is not equipped with a compliant fire sprinkler system, the maximum building height shall be 30 feet. Subd. 3. Outdoor Lighting: Unless otherwise specified herein, outdoor lighting shall abide by the requirements specified in the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. (a) Lighting levels at property lines shall be limited to 0.0 foot-candle. (b) Parking and Walkway lighting fixtures shall utilize full cut-off luminaries with no more than 10 percent of light output above the horizontal plane through the light source. (c) Landscape and architectural lighting shall be aimed directly at the area of focus. Spill light shall be minimized through the use of narrow distribution luminaries and control devices such as louvers, refractors, barn doors, and glare shields. Subd. 3. Outdoor Storage Prohibited. Outdoor Storage shall be prohibited within the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district. Subd. 4. Buffer Yard. A buffer yard as described in Section 828.31 shall be required. Subd. 5. The commercial district standards, as required in Section 838.5, shall be observed. SECTION II. Section 828.31 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows: Section 828.31. Buffer Yard Requirements. Subd. 1. Generally. A buffer yard is a combination of distance, plantings, berms, and fencing. The purpose of a buffer yard is to reduce the negative impacts that may result when land uses of different intensities abut each other or when residential uses abut primary roadways. Subd. 2. Buffer yards required. A buffer yard shall be required in the following situations: (a) Adjacent to less intensive zoning district. A buffer yard shall be required when a developing property is adjacent to or across a street from property of a less intensive zoning district, as summarized by the following table. (b) Adjacent to Collector or Arterial Roadways. A buffer yard shall be required along collector and arterial roadways if the property on the opposite side of the roadway is of the same or a more intensive zoning district, as summarized by the following table. Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Ordinance No. ### 5 DATE Required Bufferyard Opacity Zoning District of Proposed Development R-1 0.3 R-2 0.3 R-3 or MXR 0.4 R-4 0.4 R-5 0.4 CN 0.5 Zo n i n g D i s t r i c t o f P r o p e r t y Ad j a c e n t t o P r o p o s e d De v e l o p m e n t * * Rural PUD-1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 SR 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 R-1 0.1* 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 UR 0.1* 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1* R-2 0.1* 0.1* 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1* R-3 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.2 0.3 0.1* Mixed Use Districts 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.2 0.3 0.1* R-4 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.2 0.1* R-5 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* Commercial, Uptown Hamel, General Business, and Industrial Districts 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* None Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Ordinance No. ### 6 DATE SECTION III. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _______day of _____________, 2019. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the _______ day of _____________, 2019. Resolution No. 2019-## DATE Member _____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ### an ordinance amending the regulations of the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district, amending Chapter 8 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publications by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is 6 pages in length; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety: Public Notice The city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance amending the regulations of the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district. The district removes automobile repair shops from the list of conditional uses, adds existing single-family homes as allowed interim uses, and amends requirements for landscaped bufferyards. The full text of the ordinance is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Dated: ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Resolution No. 2019-## 2 DATE 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: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Various Properties for Consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Finke stated that there are 35 proposed rezonings of property in order to bring those properties into consistency with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the thorough Comprehensive Plan process, which included numerous public input opportunities, that the City undertook over a number of years. He stated that the plan identifies a primary goal of preserving the open space and natural resources of the City, which allowing some opportunities for the City to continue to grow while still maintaining the visions and goals of the City. He stated that through that process the anticipated uses for the next 20 years were reviewed and then a more thorough review was done to plan for infrastructure and amenities, such as parks. He stated that the plan identifies the future land use, identifying areas of the City that are anticipated for future commercial or residential development, and at what density. He stated that a staging plan was also identified to plan for future development and residential growth. He stated that the City’s plan is required to be in compliance with the regional systems and system statements from the Metropolitan Council. He stated that because the plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council and has been adopted by Medina, the City now has nine months to update the internal controls of the City to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that staff reviewed the current zoning to identify areas where changes were made in use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and more broadly to identify any issues of inconsistency. He stated that a map and table were provided in the Commission packet detailing the 35 properties identified for rezoning. He provided additional details on the properties proposed for rezoning, broken down by areas of the City, reviewing the current zoning and proposed zoning. He noted that the use, such as residential, commercial, or rural, is determined by the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning implements this designation. Reid referenced parcels 15 and 19, which are proposed to be changed from mixed use business to commercial highway and asked for details. Finke replied that the mixed used business designation in the old plan allowed for a combination of commercial and high-density residential. The rezoning was proposed because the City guided the property for commercial use in the updated Comp Plan, and residential uses would not be anticipated within a commercial land use. Reid asked for the previous zoning of those parcels prior to 2010. Finke stated that those parcels were zoned for business development going back to 2000. Williams asked the desired action from the Commission tonight. Finke explained that staff is looking for a recommendation on the proposed rezonings, using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide. Albers asked for additional details on the commercial highway and mixed-use business. Finke clarified that one is a zoning district while the other is a land use. Nester asked if the zoning could be changed to commercial neighborhood and still remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finke stated that is the less intensive district and could be an option. Albers opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 2 Finke noted that staff received comments electronically which were provided to the Commission and will be entered as a part of the record. Amic stated that they are on the Planning Commission because they love the City, just like everyone else, and are serving as volunteers to do the best they can for the future of the City. Jennifer Palm, 1432 County Road 29, stated that she would like to request additional discussion regarding the zoning on their property. She stated that they have been attempting to develop on this property for 2.5 years for a senior care facility and now Elim Care is developing across the street as they were able to gain approval from Maple Plain. She stated that in order to build the number of units specified for their parcel, with the required parking, they would need five stories. She stated that due to the market changes, developing 24 units on two acres would be extremely difficult. She stated that she has correspondence from the City and Metropolitan Council which suggested seven to 12 units per acre, which she believed would be more developable. Larry Palm stated that they also own 1400 Baker Park Road and developed the retail center. He stated that they paid for the utilities to be brought to the property which will then be used for the property at 1472 Baker Park Road. He stated that he and that that property owner came forward within the last year or two with development proposals. He stated that he spends the money bringing the utilities services to an area that City is not approving for development and is not designating appropriate zoning which would allow for development. He stated that he continues to pay taxes on property that cannot be developed. Mrs. Palm noted that they own additional properties in Medina that they pay taxes on and maintain. Reid stated that perhaps it would make sense to review the proposed zoning for those parcels. Finke stated that the density requirements were identified in the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed zoning mirrors that density. He stated that if the question is density, that would be a question of the Comprehensive Plan and not the zoning. He stated that the City can look at amending the Comprehensive Plan, perhaps to eight units per acre. He noted that on a two-acre site, that would not have a large impact on the City’s density requirements, however, changing the density for all high density sites would likely cause problems. He stated that perhaps the City could carve out a lower high-density range. Amic asked the perfect use for the land owned by the Palms, as the memory care unit is no longer an option. Mr. Palm replied that it would depend upon what the market will allow. He stated that he has previous attempted retail/commercial and townhomes and there was not interest. He stated that to place a 12 unit per acre minimum on a two-acre parcel does not mechanically work. He stated that a comment was made in the past that their parcel would be tied to the neighboring parcel to allow a larger project. He stated that if a developer has to go through an additional step of rezoning, the developer moves on. Mrs. Palm stated that happened on this site as they had previous brought forward a request for a memory care facility on this site which the Council did not approve because of the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan, and Elim Care went right across the street and built in Maple Plain. Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, asked for clarification on the process. He stated that he has been a part of many of the Comprehensive Plan discussions and asked the purpose of the meeting tonight. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 3 Finke stated that the Metropolitan Council and City Council have approved and adopted the plan and now staff is going through the process of identifying inconsistencies between the existing zoning and the adopted Comprehensive Plan to bring those properties into compliance prior to the nine-month deadline specified by the Metropolitan Council. He stated that there were land use changes under the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning needs to be updated. Mr. Hoglund asked if some or all of the 35 could be approved or eliminated from this request. Finke stated that while some properties could be eliminated from the discussion tonight, there would still need to be a different rezoning considered and applied prior to the nine-month deadline. Mr. Hoglund asked if additional property could be rezoned that is not included on the list. Finke confirmed that additional properties that are identified as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan could be added and rezoned. He stated that a property owner can always request a rezoning of their property at any time. Mr. Hoglund stated that he owns land on Brockton Lane which abuts the City of Plymouth and would think the nature of progress would allow for that land to continue to develop in a similar way to the property in Plymouth. He stated that his property is not even included for development in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Finke stated that the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed, and updates are made every ten years. Albers stated that he was part of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and the comment was made that residents wanted to ensure that residential development is shared across the community rather than focusing that development in one area. He stated that the property referenced by Mr. Hoglund is not included in the MUSA, even though there are municipal utilities in Plymouth. He explained that the City planned for the minimum number of units required by the Metropolitan Council system statements. Mr. Hoglund asked if a developer wished to develop the parcel, the development would then require five- acre+ homes sites, rather than a denser suburban style development. He asked that someone look at that parcel again as it would logically develop in a similar manner to the property in Plymouth. He noted that the utilities are available on the neighboring parcel and is astounded that development is not planned for the next 20 years. Finke confirmed that the property could be developed with rural lots. James Peterson, 812 Meander Road, stated that he has lived happily in Medina for 33 years. He stated that the plan as proposed would change the zoning of his property to make his property unsaleable. He stated that his health is not in the best condition and he is worried about the prospect of his home if his wife is left alone as she would be stuck. He stated that if the property remains as currently zoned, the property could always be developed in some area and his property could be developed. He believed that the proposed rezoning would take away the value of his property. He stated that over the years his property has been chipped into by roadway, his neighbors across the road have been taken away and he would like the City to stop and just leave his property as it is. Susan Nordstrom, 4200 Foxberry Court, stated that she is adjacent to parcel 15, which abuts Mr. Peterson’s property. She stated that she received the notification because of the proximity to their property. She stated that went she went to the City website to find more information, six months of meeting notes were missing, that have since been posted. She stated that she attempted to learn the Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 4 difference between mixed use and commercial highway. She stated that the takeaway for her would be that mixed use would have a maximum height of two stories while commercial highway would have 3.5 units. She stated that she also believed that commercial highway property was all adjacent to Highway 55, whereas this parcel is not along Highway 55. She stated that she never thought she would have commercial property right behind her home. She stated that she works from home and all her windows face parcel 15. She asked where the traffic from a commercial development would go in that area. She stated that she has met a lot of great neighbors through this process and appreciated the ability for the public to provide input tonight. She asked the Commission to think about what they would want in their own backyards. Tom Rocco, 4235 Foxberry Court, stated that he moved to his property in May of 2018 and was pretty stunned to receive a letter that commercial highway development would be going in behind his home. He stated that he began to do research and all of the other commercial highway property is located on Highway 55. He stated that this parcel proposed for commercial highway is in the middle of residential properties and was unsure why commercial highway zoning would be appropriate for that property. He stated that he reached out to land development experts who stated that this was an example of extremely poor land management. He stated that he was disappointed that while he only had ten days to prepare for this meeting, he went to the Planning Commission website and was not able to find minutes from any time after he moved to Medina in May. He recognized that Finke was able to post those minutes once alerted to the issue. He asked if the Planning Commission would want commercial development behind their homes. Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, stated that his property is north of the Peterson property and his property extends into the wetlands. He stated that he moved to his property in 1997 and was involved in the development of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan, attending every meeting as a resident to provide input. He stated that at that time the desire was to keep the area rural and low density but noted that over time changes were made. He stated that a few years ago the City Council was pushing for townhomes on Clydesdale, and even with objections from residents, the City Council allowed that development to go in. He stated that now the City wants to take property surrounded by residential properties and push in a gas station or similar commercial development. He noted that the site is also surrounded by wetland and asked the amount of buildable area that would be available on that property. He stated that filling in wetlands to allow commercial development would ruin the character of the area. He stated that every public hearing he has attended has been a public hearing where it has been said that things have already been done. He was unsure the point of a public hearing at that point. He stated that some of these changes will devalue properties, using the example of the Peterson property. He asked the Commission to rethink this plan. Eric Dahmer, 4470 Shorewood Trail, stated that he sits on the HOA Board for Foxberry Farms and noted that he is speaking tonight on his own behalf. He stated that he is hearing concern with the proposed zoning of commercial highway for lots 19 and 15. He stated that within his neighborhood is 138 homes, representing up to 800 residents. He stated that if you add the other two neighborhoods that would be about one fifth of the population of the City of Medina. He stated that the people are concerned because of the nature, feel and density of the proposed zoning compared to the zoning that surrounds the properties. He stated that the commercial development that exists is similar to a home office that has minimal traffic during the daytime. He stated that the concern is with the activity that is allowed within the commercial highway zoning district, such as a gas station or fast food restaurant. He stated that there are lower intensity zoning districts that would ease the minds of some residents. He stated that he would feel a little better with the neighborhood commercial zoning, as that will keep the intensity of the parcel to a much more manageable level. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 5 Craig Theis, 900 Fox Path Court, stated that his family moved to Medina four years ago to a family friendly neighborhood. He stated that they bike around the neighborhood and the thought of a 3.5 story building on that property seems totally out of place. He stated that he also sits on the HOA Board for Foxberry Farms and there is a lot of concern from the residents in that neighborhood. He asked the Commission to think of a different zoning for that parcel. He stated that commercial highway zoning off the highway does not make sense. Kristin Toste, 4650 Foxberry Drive, stated that 20 years ago she and her husband built a home in an open area. She stated that seven years ago her child was involved in an accident at Hackamore and she campaigned to get the stoplight put in. She referenced the high number of accidents at that intersection. She stated that her concern is CR 116 and the additional traffic that a commercial highway development would bring to the area. She believed that the traffic counts are already maxed out and the City does not have any control because it is a County road. She believed that the plan should be amended to move that commercial highway parcel because 116 cannot handle that additional traffic. David Wain, 4442 Bluebell Trail S, referenced parcel 20 and asked for details on the purple area below that parcel. Finke clarified that parcel 20 was subject to a subdivision a few months prior and there has been preliminary approval to divide the property as shown. He stated that the business park designation is a lower intensity designation and therefore would apply to the north parcel. He reviewed the permitted uses within the business park designation. Joe Cavanaugh stated that his family has been farming the land for over 60 years and owns parcel 29, which is a big investment on their part. He stated that when they purchased the property it was zoned for development in 2025. He acknowledged that development has been pushed out. He stated that if the property remained as rural commercial holding it would allow for something in the mean time before the property could be developed with utilities, rather than changing the property to rural residential. He requested to keep the property as rural commercial holding which would allow, they to do something in the interim. Mary Beth Demott, 3075 Wild Flower Trail, stated that her concern is with the properties within the eastern portion of the City. She stated that her concern is with the congestion in that part of Medina. She stated that Plymouth has also developed a large number of homes on that border and asked that those properties not be rezoned to rural residential. She stated that perhaps those properties to moved across Medina Road along Holy Name Road. She asked that the property be left as farmland. Albers closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. Albers reviewed the options for the Planning Commission, noting that a recommendation could be made to the City Council or the Commission could ask staff to review the comments made tonight to determine if there are changes that should be made. Williams asked how the overall planning would be impacted if some parcels are removed tonight. Finke explained that the City has until May to determine the official zoning controls that bring the properties into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore action does not have to occur tonight. He stated that there are properties in the City that are already zoned within these specific zoning districts and therefore adjusting the zoning districts themselves would have ramifications on those other properties. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and if a change is proposed to that plan, an amendment would need to be made to the plan. He stated that the Metropolitan Council would review the Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 6 amendment based on their system statement and mandates for the City. He stated that there could be implications depending upon the changes that are made. Nester stated that she would like to have more discussion related to the commercial highway parcels and the parcel requiring 24 units on two acres providing the parcel numbers 15, 19, 32, and 34. Reid agreed with the comments made by Nester. She referenced parcels 15 and 19 which has an office building across the street. She asked the zoning of that parcel. Finke replied that parcel was developed under a PUD with business park as the underlying designation. Reid stated that perhaps parcels 15 and 19 are zoned to business park which would have a lower intensity use. Finke stated that business and commercial are separate designations within the Comprehensive Plan, with different objectives for each. He reviewed the types of uses that would be allowed under a business use compared to commercial use. Reid asked if there has been communication with the owners of parcel. Finke stated that the property owner called with questions but not with interest in construction. Reid stated that business park seems like it may be a better fit because of the adjacent uses and asked if an amendment would be needed to the Comprehensive Plan. Finke agreed that an amendment would be needed but noted that would be straightforward and would not impact the system statements and projections of the City. He stated that business would allow warehouse and industrial. He stated that another option would be neighborhood commercial which would lower the intensity of the use. Reid stated that she is also concerned with the properties on Baker Park Road as there needs to be practical guidance as to what can be done on the property. She believed that the City owes the property owners some discussion of what could be done and what would need to change. Amic stated that the discussion tonight has focused on parcels 15, 19, 32, 34, and 29 and the parcels off Medina Road. He stated that the parcels on Medina Road were previously discussed and believed that removing that would have major implications. He stated that there were stipulations on buffers and development requirements and therefore he feels confident with the parcels on Medina Road remaining as designated. He referenced parcel 29 and was unsure if there are implications that would result from the request. Finke replied that he did not think there would be implications to the overall Comprehensive Plan if the City considered commercial uses in the Future Development Area as requested by the property owner of parcel 29. He stated that the future development area does not designate a use and those properties have continued to remain as rural until the MUSA extends to that area. He stated that there have not been a lot of businesses on septic and wells. He stated that if the Commission or Council are interested in looking at properties in the long-range plan to open certain properties up for business, he did not believe it would not be inconsistent with the future development area. He commented that the individual property should be reviewed to ensure that the property would be able to support commercial traffic. He stated that there have been failures for businesses that have used septic and well in the past. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 7 Amic echoed the comments that he wants to understand if the City is giving a property owner math they cannot work with. He stated that he would ask to pull property 29 for further review. He stated that parcels 15 and 19 are difficult because of how they are currently zoned. He asked what would happen if the parcels were left as designated as mixed use. Finke stated that the current mixed-use district would not match the commercial designation and therefore one of those would need to change. He stated that when the property was designated as mixed use back in 2010, there were surrounding properties also designated mixed use. Collectively, these parcels could be viewed as having provided a mix of uses. The other parcels all developed with residential uses. The remaining parcels may prove difficult to plan a mix of uses on one acre. He stated that an existing lot can continue to be used as such, the zoning only impacts the redevelopment should the property owner be interested in selling for the purpose of redevelopment rather than the continued use. Amic stated that he would support the comment that perhaps an office park would be more appropriate for those parcels. Albers stated that the comments have all stated that they would like the property to remain as currently zoned. He stated that under the current zoning, there would be a commercial use on the property because of the residential property that was already developed on the broader portion of the overall mixed-use site. Williams asked if there are things that can be done with approvals that would specify buffering and lighting requirements to minimize the impacts on the adjacent residential properties. Finke stated that he believes the City does a good job of enacting such requirements. He stated that there are different requirements in the different zoning districts, providing examples from neighborhood commercial. Williams agreed with the comments that have been made regarding 29, 32, and 34. She stated that in regard to parcels 15 and 19, she understands the concerns with traffic in that area. She asked if there is a way to work with the HOA to limit what could be built on that property or to allow additional input from the HOA. Finke agreed that is part of the reason the Commission holds a public hearing. He stated that staff can continue to have conversations with individuals, but the zoning would have the tools to limit what could be constructed. Williams stated that she would be leaning more towards neighborhood commercial, as that would seem less intensive and match the comments that were made by a resident regarding the hours of operation and low traffic. Finke stated that if the parcels are not to be planned for commercial development, one would need to decide what use the parcel would be planned for. If residential, what density would be developed, recognizing it is at the intersection of an arterial and collector roadway, adjacent to office uses. Nester stated that it seems that the parcel is a continuation of the business across the road because of the separation of the wetland between the residential and the busy road. Amic agreed that a continuation of a low intensity commercial use would be appropriate. Finke stated that the commercial neighborhood district is not applied to any other properties in the City, and therefore making changes to the zoning district would not have impacts on any other properties in the Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 8 City, therefore additional restrictions could be made to that zoning district if desired. He stated that there may be additional opportunities to use commercial neighborhood in the future. Albers thanked everyone for attending the meeting and providing input tonight. He stated that the job of the Commission is to make a recommendation for the City Council to consider. He stated that he is leaning towards approving the amendment removing parcels 15, 19, 32 and 29 to have further discussion at a future meeting. Nester asked if commercial neighborhood could be recommended for 15 and 19 as that zoning district could be tweaked in the future. Reid stated that she does not feel that she knows enough at this time to make that recommendation and therefore would support removing the parcels mentioned for further discussion. Albers noted that another option would be to table the amendment entirely to continue the discussion while the other option would be to recommend adoption of the amendment except for the parcels mentioned (15, 19, 29, 32, and 34). He stated that he would prefer recommending the parcels as proposed, holding back parcels 15, 19, 29, 32, and 34. Finke stated that if the City is going to review 32 and 34, those are similar to two other properties that are proposed to be similarly zoned, noting parcels 6, 8, 9, and 10. He stated that while those property owners did not make comment, it would be a similar issue and logic. Amic asked if the request from the property owner of parcel 29 could be approved without implications. Albers stated that could probably be done for the entire strip. There was a comment from a resident that stated that he is happy with the designation of rural residential for the properties near him, parcels 27 and 28. He stated that he does not oppose the change for parcel 29. Finke stated that because there are similar circumstances, he would advocate looking at all the parcels and not just the property owners that spoke. He stated that the Commission can continue discussion on the entire ordinance, with the discussion focused on the input received tonight, as there is not a rushed need for a decision. He stated that it seemed that the Planning Commission is open to a neighborhood commercial zoning for parcels 15 and 19. He stated that it might be helpful if the public is interested in providing input on a possible designation of neighborhood commercial. There was a comment that Mr. Peterson could sell his home and the property could remain as a home. He was unsure if a buyer would be able to purchase the property and remain in the home. He asked what could be built on that pad without the properties developing in conjunction, noting that it would need to be a small business as the buildable area of the site is limited. Amic agreed that whatever commercial use would need to be a smaller less intensive use. Finke stated that there are interim uses allowed for uses that exist prior to the change in zoning. He stated that the home could remain and continue as the use, regardless of the zoning. He stated that protections are built in for transitional zoning changes, he stated that the home would be a permitted use and would not become nonconforming. The resident asked if Mr. Peterson sold his home, could the buyer then remodel and change the home. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 9 Finke confirmed that those protections are built into the transitional zoning district. Another resident commented that parcel 19 is owned by an LLC and is unsure of the buildable space on parcel 19. He stated that normally someone would fill the wetland, but it has been stated that cannot be done and perhaps the LLC is waiting for Mr. Peterson to sell his property in order to construct a project in conjunction. Finke agreed that it would be a reasonable assumption that the properties would be developed together. The resident stated that while people have made comments that the property could be developed as a gas station or fast food restaurant, that is unlikely because of the site layout and buildable area. It was asked and confirmed that the City would not allow an access to that property from CR 116, the access would need to be provided from Meander. A comment was made that commercial highway would not make sense as Medina’s definition of commercial highway is property along Highway 55. Williams stated that it would be helpful to know the amount of buildable land to determine what could potentially be built on the commercial property. Motion by Amic, seconded by Williams, to table the ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, requesting additional information on the parcels discussed in detail 15, 19, 29, 32, 34 and other similar properties. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper and White) Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 2/12/2019 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Haring – Ordinance Amendment – Related to the Requirements of the Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District Finke stated that this agenda item arose out of the discussion in December related to the rezoning of properties within the City for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically related to the properties at 116 and Meander Road proposed for Commercial-Highway zoning. He stated that the suggestion was made to change that zoning to Commercial-Neighborhood. He explained that there currently are no properties zoned Commercial-Neighborhood and therefore proposed changes to that zoning district would not impact other existing properties. He stated that in the next agenda item, the Commission will consider adding the two parcels at 116 and Meander to Commercial-Neighborhood. He reviewed the proposed changes to the zoning district which would include removing auto repair, allowing an expansion of an existing single-family home on commercial property (which would protect the rights of the existing home on the property), and to require additional buffer requirements in the rear yard of a Commercial-Neighborhood property adjacent to residential development. Nielsen asked if there is a reason this district has not been used before in Medina. Finke replied that there has not been much new commercial development adjacent to residential since the district was created in 2008. Nielsen asked if there would be other areas in the City where this district may be used in the future. Finke replied that there could be opportunities to use this district in the future and provided another location in the City that could be a possibility. Williams asked if the proposed amendments would cover any potential concerns that could arise for the other land mentioned that could be rezoned to this district in the future. Finke confirmed that these changes would not have a negative impact on other parcels that could potentially be rezoned into this district. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, asked the setbacks, side and rear, specifically whether there are any changes between the two districts. Finke stated that the setback from residential property would be 40 feet with a buffer yard requirement for the rear setback which requires a screen of 50 percent opacity. He stated that the district is designed to be less intense as it is known that it will be near residential property. He stated that if there are massive setbacks there would not be much left for development on the site, therefore lowering the intensity in use and increasing the buffer requirement seemed to be a better fit than requiring a larger setback without screening. Tom Roco, 4235 Foxberry Court, stated that his property is directly adjacent to the property in discussion. He believed that this proposal is a drastic improvement from Commercial-Highway and would be much more appropriate as the land is adjacent to residential development. Finke stated that the setback from residential for Mixed-Use is 50 feet and Commercial-Highway has a setback of 40 feet from residential. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 2/12/2019 Meeting Minutes 2 Amic stated that it seems that this would be an improvement as the current zoning is Mixed-Use with a 50-foot setback while the new designation would have a setback of 40 feet but would require 50 percent opacity screening. Finke explained that the Mixed-Use district required 40 percent opacity, therefore this is an increased buffer requirement in return for a ten-foot reduction in the setback. Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Amic, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending the requirements of the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district. Motion carries unanimously. Rezonings for Consistency with Page 1 of 9 March 5, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: February 27, 2019 MEETING: March 5, 2019 City Council SUBJ: Rezoning for Consistency with 2040 Comprehensive Plan Background On October 2, 2018, the City Council adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. Adoption of the Plan was the culmination of and extensive multi-year process which included over 15 months of public participation, 8 community meetings, 15 Steering Committee meetings, 4 concurrent City Council/Planning commission worksessions, an online forum, a formal public hearing and a series of City Council reviews. Through this process, the City developed the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan within the Comprehensive Plan sets planned land uses and densities and establishes objectives for these uses. These broad decisions on which type of land uses were planned at locations throughout the City were completed in a comprehensive manner because decisions on one property could affect others in the community and the City was attempting to meet a broad set of objectives (including growth mandates of the Metropolitan Council) and evaluate options across the City. Now that these decisions related to land use and density have been put into effect within the Plan, the City is required to review and make appropriate changes to its official controls, including zoning regulations, within nine months of the updated Plan being in effect. The Implementation Chapter (7) of the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan describes the changes the City anticipated needing to make because of various changes in the Plan. These changes included the rezoning of certain properties which were changed within the Comprehensive Plan. Staff identified 35 parcels which are recommended to be rezoned to be consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan. It is important to note that there are no specific requests for construction on any of these properties, but the rezonings are being initiated by the City to achieve consistency with the updated Plan. These parcels are identified on the following maps and tables, with additional discussion following. Staff drafted an ordinance which would enact the recommended rezonings. The Planning Commission held two hearings on the ordinance and recommended adoption of ordinance, with some amendment. The Commission wished to have further discussion on five of the parcels (26, 27, 28, 29, and 33) so they recommended that they be removed from the ordinance for the time being. These properties are shown on Map 3. Agenda Item # 8C Rezonings for Consistency with Page 2 of 9 March 5, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting Map 1 Properties in Northeast Medina (Parcels 1-5, 6, 8-13, 15, 19, and 35) Map 2 Properties in North central Medina (Parcels 14, 16-18, 20-25, 30) Rezonings for Consistency with Page 3 of 9 March 5, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting Map 3 Properties in Northwest Medina (Parcels 26-29, 33) Map 4 Properties in Southwest Medina (Parcels 7, 31, 32, 34) Rezonings for Consistency with Page 4 of 9 March 5, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting Descriptions of Proposed Rezonings in Map 1 (Northeast Medina) 1-5, 11-13 – Medina Road-Brockton Lane/Hunter Drive RR-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Rezoning The cluster of parcels north of Medina Road between Hunter Drive and Brockton Lane (identified with numbers 1-5 and 11-13) were identified for future residential development within the 2025 or 2035 staging period. The City has historically zoned property RR-UR zoning in instances of existing rural residential parcels which are planned to be developed in the future. The RR-UR zoning district generally requires a 20-acre lot minimum, larger lot size than the Rural Residential zoning district. This is intended to limit impacts of subdivision during the time period prior to development. This practice serves various objectives described in the Comprehensive Plan: • “Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the provision of urban services that will hinder future division.” Rezonings for Consistency with Page 5 of 9 March 5, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting • “Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is not compromised.” 6 & 8-10 – Highway 55/County Road 101 – High Density Residential A cluster of properties north of Highway 55 and east of County Road 101 (identified with numbers 6, 8, 9, 10) is proposed to be zoned Residential-Multiple Family (R4). These parcels are currently zoned MR (Multiple Residential) and have been planned for High Density Residential (HDR) redevelopment at a density range of 12-15 units/acre. The R4 zoning district was created to implement the 12-15 units/acre density range and meet the objectives of the HDR land use. The current MR designation allows a wider range of density, including density higher than 15 units/acre, which was permitted in the previous comprehensive plan. 15 and 19 – Commercial-Neighborhood Parcels 15 and 19 are guided for potential Commercial development within the Comprehensive Plan. The parcels were previously guided Mixed Use-Business and zoned Mixed Use. The parcels are proposed to be zoned Commercial-Neighborhood (CN). The City has three zoning districts which have been created to implement the Commercial land use. CH is the most common district, especially along the Highway 55 corridor. The Commercial-General (CG) zoning district applies to property in the Tower Drive/Hamel Road area and allows more warehouse and light industrial types of uses, but limits height to 2 stories (instead of 3 within CH). The Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) district was created by the City 10 years ago, but does not currently apply to any property within the City. The purpose of the district is “for a mix of lower intensity retail and service businesses within proximity of residential zoning districts which provide services primarily for local residents.” The CN district limits height to 2 stories (instead of 3 within CH) and allows retail, service, and office uses, but excludes certain uses allowed in CH such as gas stations, drive-thrus, and places of assembly. Staff does not believe the CG district would be ideal because of the more industrial uses which are permitted. Staff originally recommended that the parcels be rezoned to the CH zoning district, similar to most other Commercial property in the City. The Planning Commission received many comments prior to and at the Public Hearing concerned with the proposed zoning to CH. These comments are attached, along with the meeting minutes from the hearing. Originally, most of the comments appeared to oppose the commercial land use in generally rather than the CH district specifically. Following the December hearing, staff had discussions with the most interested property owners related to the possibility a less-intensive CN zoning rather than CH. It appeared as if this change assuaged some concern, because similar comments were not raised at the February hearing. Rezonings for Consistency with Page 6 of 9 March 5, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting 35 – Mid Density Residential Rezoning The property on which the Medina Townhomes project is located (identified as number 35) is proposed to be rezoned to the Mid Density Residential (R3) district. This parcel was guided for Mixed Use development in the previous Comprehensive Plan and was developed under the Mixed Use standards. The Mixed Use standards are essentially the same as the R3 standards for townhome and multiple family development. Minimum lot area, setbacks and other development standards for townhomes were copied out of the R3 district. The updated Comp Plan does not include a Mixed Use designation, so the property was designated as Medium Density Residential. The R3 district is intended to implement the land use and would not alter the requirements for the existing structures. Descriptions of Proposed Rezonings in Map 2 (North central Medina) 14, 18, 24, 25 – Rural Residential Rezoning Four properties (identified with number 14, 18, 24, and 25) are proposed to be rezoned to Rural Residential (RR) from Rural Business Holding. These parcels were previously planned for potential future Business development but were changed to Rural Residential in the updated Comprehensive Plan. This change was in response to the general reduction in planned growth and development in the community, but also a result of the parcels being difficult to provide urban services. The access for parcels 24 and 25 unto Highway 55 is also a concern for any more intensive redevelopment. 16 and 20 – Business and Business Park Parcel 16 is owned by Wright Hennepin Electric and currently contains their electrical substation and a solar panel array and is currently zoned Business Park and guided for Business use in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending a rezoning to the Business district. Either district is used to implement the Business land use, but Business Park is generally used when property is adjacent to residential uses. In this case, the Wright-Hennepin site is surrounded by Business property. Parcel 20 is vacant property owned by Arrowhead Holdings (OSI), north of where they have proposed to expand. This property is guided for Business development and was discussed during the review of OSI’s expansion. The consensus appeared to be to zone the property Business Park because of residential development to the north and east. 17, 21, 22, 23, 30 – Rural Business Holding Rezoning A series of properties are proposed to be rezoned to Rural Business Holding (RBH). The RBH district applies to parcels which are planned for future Business development, but which are not connected to utilities. The RBH generally limits subdivisions by requiring a 20 acre lot minimum, but permits the continuation of existing rural homes and agriculture, but also limited business development on septic and well until such time as services are extended. Two properties – identified with number 17 and 22 (east 300 feet only) – were designated Business in previous Comprehensive Plans and continue to be designated for future Business development. These properties were not rezoned to the RBH as other properties were 10 years Rezonings for Consistency with Page 7 of 9 March 5, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting ago. Staff believes this may have been an oversight. The east 300 feet of parcel 22 is adjacent to the existing industrial building at 2805 Shire Road, and separated from the home and remaining property by a large wetland. Parcels 21, 23, and 30 were designated for Business development in the Comprehensive Plan update and were guided Mixed Use in the City’s previous Plan. As such, staff recommends the rezoning to RBH similar to other future Business properties. Descriptions of Proposed Rezonings in Map 3 (Northwest Medina) 26-29 & 33 – Northwest Medina (Hwy 55/CR 19) – RR-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Rezoning Five properties in the northwest corner of the City (identified with number 26-29 & 33) were designated as “Future Development Area (FDA)” in the Comp Plan. The FDA indicates that the property may be considered for development during future comp plan processes. These properties were previously planned for Business development after 2025 and zoned Rural Business Holding (RBH) but were delayed for development in the updated Comprehensive Plan. The City has generally zoned potential future development property as RR-UR. At the public hearing, the property owner of parcel 29 requested that the Commission consider allowing business uses on the property to generate revenue since the City delayed staging for development. If the Planning Commission and City Council were open to limited business development on some of these parcels, the City could consider leaving the RBH zoning district. The RBH district would permit smaller scale business uses on septic and well until such time as services are extended. The minimum lot size is the same for RBH and RR-UR (20 acres). The intensity of business development is limited to a projected 100 gallons per day per net acre of land. As an example, a site with 20 net acres would be equivalent to approximately 22,000 square foot retail, 17,500 square foot office, or about a combination 4,000 s.f. office/8,000 warehouse. If the Planning Commission and Council are open to businesses in some of the Future Development Area, staff would recommend limiting it to the properties which could directly access arterial roadways such as County Road 19. Staff would not recommend the RBH zoning district for properties which would need to access directly onto Highway 55 or more rural roadways such as Pioneer Trail or Town Line Road. The Planning Commission requested additional discussion on these parcels, so it is recommended that they be pulled from the ordinance. The attached version of the ordinance does not include these parcels. Descriptions of Proposed Rezonings in Map 4 (Southwest Medina) 7, 31, 32, 34 – Southwest Medina (Highway 12/Baker Park Road) Rezonings Four properties in the southwest corner of the City are proposed to be rezoned as a result of changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Rezonings for Consistency with Page 8 of 9 March 5, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting One parcel (identified by number 7) was purchased by Three Rivers Park, and the home demolished and was added to the Baker Park Reserve. Staff recommends rezoning the property Public/Semi-Public like the rest of Baker Park. Two parcels currently contain single-family homes and were designated for potential High Density Residential (HDR) redevelopment (identified as numbers 32 and 34 on the map). Staff recommends rezoning to the R4 (Residential-Multiple Family) district, which is intended to implement the HDR land use. The larger parcel in this area was also designated for HDR development but is currently vacant (identified as number 31 on the map). The property is staged for development after 2021, so staff has recommended that the property be zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) until development is possible. The owner of parcel 34 appeared at the December and February public hearings and raised concerns about the impact of the HDR land use upon the value of their property. They noted that their parcel is approximately 2 acres in size and the requirement to develop 24-30 units does not provide much flexibility and impacts marketability. Staff noted that this is a more of a question for the Comprehensive Plan rather than the zoning, although the Comp Plan does include language which could provide a little bit more flexibility: “Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. Such modification shall generally not exceed -10% of the minimum density or +20% of the maximum density requirement of the relevant land use.” Such flexibility could be explicitly described in the R4 zoning district, but did not appear to provide the amount of flexibility desired by the property owner. The property owner noted that this amount of flexibility wouldn’t significantly improve their situation and requested a different land use designation. While recognizing that this was not the appropriate forum for discussions of the land use, Planning Commissioners were supportive of changing the land use of parcel #34 and #32 if the City could do so while still meeting its requirements. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council consider initiating an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to guide the properties at a lower density. Unless and until there is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that the parcels be zoned R4 as recommended. The Planning Commission concurred, and the parcels are included in the attached ordinance to be rezoned to R4. Public Hearing/Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held two hearings on the proposed rezonings, which occurred at their December and February meetings. An excerpt from the meeting minutes of each meeting is attached for reference. Rezonings for Consistency with Page 9 of 9 March 5, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting Staff summarized the comments received in the public hearing and the direction of the Planning Commission during the corresponding descriptions above. As noted, there was significant feedback and discussion on parcels 15 and 19 (Map 1), and the Planning Commission proposed rezoning Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) instead of Commercial-Highway (CH) to address these comments. There was discussion related to parcel 29 (Map 3), and the Planning Commission recommended delaying the rezoning of parcels 26-29 and 33 to allow for further discussion. There was discussion related to parcel 34 (Map 4), and the Planning Commission recommended the rezoning to R4 as proposed, but also recommended that the City Council consider an amendment to the land use to allow a lower density development. Following these discussions, the Planning Commission unanimously passed the following motion: “recommend adoption of the ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, excluding properties 26, 27, 28, 29, and 33 and recommending that the City file a Comprehensive Plan amendment for parcels 32 and 34.” The attached ordinance does not include parcels 26, 27, 28, 29, or 33 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff intends to continue discussion of these parcels at the March 12 meeting. After the City Council and finished review of the ordinance, the Council could consider the following actions: 1 Move to adopt the ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2 Move to adopt the resolution authorizing publication by title and summary Attachments 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Resolution to publish by title and summary 3. Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Planning Commission meeting 4. Excerpt from draft 2/12/2019 Planning Commission meeting 5. Comments Received 6. Map identifying properties proposed to be rezoned 7. Current Zoning Map 8. Future Land Use Map Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE VARIOUS PROPERTIES FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE CITY COUNCIL OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following properties are hereby rezoned to the zoning district indicated for each within the table: Map ID PID #Address Street Name Zoning Prior to Rezoning New Zoning After Rezoning 1 1311823420005 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 2 1311823420008 242 MEDINA RD RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 3 1311823420006 2800 HUNTER DR RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 4 1311823410004 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 5 1311823410005 222 MEDINA RD RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 6 1211823410006 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MR - Multiple Family Residential R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 7 3011823220001 1542 CO RD NO 29 UR - Urban Residential PS - Public/Semi-Public 8 1211823410005 42 STATE HWY NO 55 MR - Multiple Family Residential R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 9 1211823410008 72 STATE HWY NO 55 MR - Multiple Family Residential R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 10 1211823140004 62 STATE HWY NO 55 MR - Multiple Family Residential R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 11 1311823140003 4125 BROCKTON LA RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 12 1311823140001 4175 BROCKTON LA RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 13 1311823130002 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 14 1011823220011 2390 PIONEER TR RBH - Rural Business Holding RR -Rural Residential 15 0211823440053 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MU - Mixed Use CN - Commercial-Neighborhood 16 0411823420011 4315 WILLOW DR BP - Business Park B - Business 17 0411823340001 4125 APACHE DR BP - Business Park RBH - Rural Business Holding 18 1011823220002 2382 PIONEER TR RBH - Rural Business Holding RR -Rural Residential 19 0211823440003 812 MEANDER RD MU - Mixed Use CN - Commercial-Neighborhood 20 0311823410005 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MU - Mixed Use B_BP - Business & Busiess Park 21 0311823410001 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR-UR - Rural Residentail-Urban Reserve RBH - Rural Business Holding 22 0411823320001 3212 PIONEER TR RR - Rural Residential RBH - Rural Business Holding (east 300 feet only) 23 0411823140005 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR-UR - Rural Residentail-Urban Reserve RBH - Rural Business Holding 24 0411823220003 3102 STATE HWY NO 55 RBH - Rural Business Holding RR -Rural Residential 25 0411823220002 3082 STATE HWY NO 55 RBH - Rural Business Holding RR -Rural Residential 30 0311823420001 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR-UR - Rural Residentail-Urban Reserve RBH - Rural Business Holding 31 3011823230001 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CH - Commercial Highway RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 32 3011823220002 1472 CO RD NO 29 CH - Commercial Highway R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 34 3011823220004 1432 CO RD NO 29 CH - Commercial Highway R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 35 1211823240031 80 ADDRESS PENDING MU - Mixed Use R3 - Mid-Density Residential Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE Section 2. The properties rezoned are displayed on Exhibits A-C, attached hereto. Section 3. A copy of this Ordinance and the updated map shall be kept on file at the Medina City Hall. Section 4. The City of Medina Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to make the appropriate changes to the official zoning map of the City of Medina to reflect the change in zoning classifications as set forth above. Section 5. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Adopted by the Medina City Council this __ day of ______________, 2019. CITY OF MEDINA By: Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: By: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on this _____ day of _____________, 2019. Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE EXHIBIT A Map of Properties Rezoned in Northeast portion of City Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE EXHIBIT B Map of Properties Rezoned in Northcentral portion of City Ordinance No. ### 5 DATE EXHIBIT C Map of Properties Rezoned in Southwest portion of City Resolution No. 2019-## DATE Member _____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ### an ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter 8 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publications by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is 5 pages in length and contains maps; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety: Public Notice The city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, amending the official zoning map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance rezones the following properties to the indicated district: The full text of the ordinance is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular business hours. New Zoning After Rezoning New Zoning After Rezoning 1311823420005 RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 4315 WILLOW DR B - Business 242 MEDINA RD RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 4125 APACHE DR RBH - Rural Business Holding 2800 HUNTER DR RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 2382 PIONEER TR RR -Rural Residential 1311823410004 RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 812 MEANDER RD CN - Commercial-Neighborhood 222 MEDINA RD RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 0311823410005 B_BP - Business & Busiess Park 1211823410006 R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 0311823410001 RBH - Rural Business Holding 1542 CO RD NO 29 PS - Public/Semi-Public 3212 PIONEER TR RBH - Rural Business Holding (east 300 feet only) 42 STATE HWY NO 55 R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 0411823140005 RBH - Rural Business Holding 72 STATE HWY NO 55 R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 3102 STATE HWY NO 55 RR -Rural Residential 62 STATE HWY NO 55 R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 3082 STATE HWY NO 55 RR -Rural Residential 4125 BROCKTON LA RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 0311823420001 RBH - Rural Business Holding 4175 BROCKTON LA RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 3011823230001 RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 1311823130002 RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 1472 CO RD NO 29 R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 2390 PIONEER TR RR -Rural Residential 1432 CO RD NO 29 R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 0211823440053 CN - Commercial-Neighborhood 1211823240031 R3 - Mid-Density Residential Address or PID Address or PID Resolution No. 2019-## 2 DATE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Dated: ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City 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: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Various Properties for Consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Finke stated that there are 35 proposed rezonings of property in order to bring those properties into consistency with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the thorough Comprehensive Plan process, which included numerous public input opportunities, that the City undertook over a number of years. He stated that the plan identifies a primary goal of preserving the open space and natural resources of the City, which allowing some opportunities for the City to continue to grow while still maintaining the visions and goals of the City. He stated that through that process the anticipated uses for the next 20 years were reviewed and then a more thorough review was done to plan for infrastructure and amenities, such as parks. He stated that the plan identifies the future land use, identifying areas of the City that are anticipated for future commercial or residential development, and at what density. He stated that a staging plan was also identified to plan for future development and residential growth. He stated that the City’s plan is required to be in compliance with the regional systems and system statements from the Metropolitan Council. He stated that because the plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council and has been adopted by Medina, the City now has nine months to update the internal controls of the City to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that staff reviewed the current zoning to identify areas where changes were made in use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and more broadly to identify any issues of inconsistency. He stated that a map and table were provided in the Commission packet detailing the 35 properties identified for rezoning. He provided additional details on the properties proposed for rezoning, broken down by areas of the City, reviewing the current zoning and proposed zoning. He noted that the use, such as residential, commercial, or rural, is determined by the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning implements this designation. Reid referenced parcels 15 and 19, which are proposed to be changed from mixed use business to commercial highway and asked for details. Finke replied that the mixed used business designation in the old plan allowed for a combination of commercial and high-density residential. The rezoning was proposed because the City guided the property for commercial use in the updated Comp Plan, and residential uses would not be anticipated within a commercial land use. Reid asked for the previous zoning of those parcels prior to 2010. Finke stated that those parcels were zoned for business development going back to 2000. Williams asked the desired action from the Commission tonight. Finke explained that staff is looking for a recommendation on the proposed rezonings, using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide. Albers asked for additional details on the commercial highway and mixed-use business. Finke clarified that one is a zoning district while the other is a land use. Nester asked if the zoning could be changed to commercial neighborhood and still remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finke stated that is the less intensive district and could be an option. Albers opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 2 Finke noted that staff received comments electronically which were provided to the Commission and will be entered as a part of the record. Amic stated that they are on the Planning Commission because they love the City, just like everyone else, and are serving as volunteers to do the best they can for the future of the City. Jennifer Palm, 1432 County Road 29, stated that she would like to request additional discussion regarding the zoning on their property. She stated that they have been attempting to develop on this property for 2.5 years for a senior care facility and now Elim Care is developing across the street as they were able to gain approval from Maple Plain. She stated that in order to build the number of units specified for their parcel, with the required parking, they would need five stories. She stated that due to the market changes, developing 24 units on two acres would be extremely difficult. She stated that she has correspondence from the City and Metropolitan Council which suggested seven to 12 units per acre, which she believed would be more developable. Larry Palm stated that they also own 1400 Baker Park Road and developed the retail center. He stated that they paid for the utilities to be brought to the property which will then be used for the property at 1472 Baker Park Road. He stated that he and that that property owner came forward within the last year or two with development proposals. He stated that he spends the money bringing the utilities services to an area that City is not approving for development and is not designating appropriate zoning which would allow for development. He stated that he continues to pay taxes on property that cannot be developed. Mrs. Palm noted that they own additional properties in Medina that they pay taxes on and maintain. Reid stated that perhaps it would make sense to review the proposed zoning for those parcels. Finke stated that the density requirements were identified in the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed zoning mirrors that density. He stated that if the question is density, that would be a question of the Comprehensive Plan and not the zoning. He stated that the City can look at amending the Comprehensive Plan, perhaps to eight units per acre. He noted that on a two-acre site, that would not have a large impact on the City’s density requirements, however, changing the density for all high density sites would likely cause problems. He stated that perhaps the City could carve out a lower high-density range. Amic asked the perfect use for the land owned by the Palms, as the memory care unit is no longer an option. Mr. Palm replied that it would depend upon what the market will allow. He stated that he has previous attempted retail/commercial and townhomes and there was not interest. He stated that to place a 12 unit per acre minimum on a two-acre parcel does not mechanically work. He stated that a comment was made in the past that their parcel would be tied to the neighboring parcel to allow a larger project. He stated that if a developer has to go through an additional step of rezoning, the developer moves on. Mrs. Palm stated that happened on this site as they had previous brought forward a request for a memory care facility on this site which the Council did not approve because of the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan, and Elim Care went right across the street and built in Maple Plain. Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, asked for clarification on the process. He stated that he has been a part of many of the Comprehensive Plan discussions and asked the purpose of the meeting tonight. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 3 Finke stated that the Metropolitan Council and City Council have approved and adopted the plan and now staff is going through the process of identifying inconsistencies between the existing zoning and the adopted Comprehensive Plan to bring those properties into compliance prior to the nine-month deadline specified by the Metropolitan Council. He stated that there were land use changes under the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning needs to be updated. Mr. Hoglund asked if some or all of the 35 could be approved or eliminated from this request. Finke stated that while some properties could be eliminated from the discussion tonight, there would still need to be a different rezoning considered and applied prior to the nine-month deadline. Mr. Hoglund asked if additional property could be rezoned that is not included on the list. Finke confirmed that additional properties that are identified as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan could be added and rezoned. He stated that a property owner can always request a rezoning of their property at any time. Mr. Hoglund stated that he owns land on Brockton Lane which abuts the City of Plymouth and would think the nature of progress would allow for that land to continue to develop in a similar way to the property in Plymouth. He stated that his property is not even included for development in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Finke stated that the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed, and updates are made every ten years. Albers stated that he was part of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and the comment was made that residents wanted to ensure that residential development is shared across the community rather than focusing that development in one area. He stated that the property referenced by Mr. Hoglund is not included in the MUSA, even though there are municipal utilities in Plymouth. He explained that the City planned for the minimum number of units required by the Metropolitan Council system statements. Mr. Hoglund asked if a developer wished to develop the parcel, the development would then require five- acre+ homes sites, rather than a denser suburban style development. He asked that someone look at that parcel again as it would logically develop in a similar manner to the property in Plymouth. He noted that the utilities are available on the neighboring parcel and is astounded that development is not planned for the next 20 years. Finke confirmed that the property could be developed with rural lots. James Peterson, 812 Meander Road, stated that he has lived happily in Medina for 33 years. He stated that the plan as proposed would change the zoning of his property to make his property unsaleable. He stated that his health is not in the best condition and he is worried about the prospect of his home if his wife is left alone as she would be stuck. He stated that if the property remains as currently zoned, the property could always be developed in some area and his property could be developed. He believed that the proposed rezoning would take away the value of his property. He stated that over the years his property has been chipped into by roadway, his neighbors across the road have been taken away and he would like the City to stop and just leave his property as it is. Susan Nordstrom, 4200 Foxberry Court, stated that she is adjacent to parcel 15, which abuts Mr. Peterson’s property. She stated that she received the notification because of the proximity to their property. She stated that went she went to the City website to find more information, six months of meeting notes were missing, that have since been posted. She stated that she attempted to learn the Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 4 difference between mixed use and commercial highway. She stated that the takeaway for her would be that mixed use would have a maximum height of two stories while commercial highway would have 3.5 units. She stated that she also believed that commercial highway property was all adjacent to Highway 55, whereas this parcel is not along Highway 55. She stated that she never thought she would have commercial property right behind her home. She stated that she works from home and all her windows face parcel 15. She asked where the traffic from a commercial development would go in that area. She stated that she has met a lot of great neighbors through this process and appreciated the ability for the public to provide input tonight. She asked the Commission to think about what they would want in their own backyards. Tom Rocco, 4235 Foxberry Court, stated that he moved to his property in May of 2018 and was pretty stunned to receive a letter that commercial highway development would be going in behind his home. He stated that he began to do research and all of the other commercial highway property is located on Highway 55. He stated that this parcel proposed for commercial highway is in the middle of residential properties and was unsure why commercial highway zoning would be appropriate for that property. He stated that he reached out to land development experts who stated that this was an example of extremely poor land management. He stated that he was disappointed that while he only had ten days to prepare for this meeting, he went to the Planning Commission website and was not able to find minutes from any time after he moved to Medina in May. He recognized that Finke was able to post those minutes once alerted to the issue. He asked if the Planning Commission would want commercial development behind their homes. Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, stated that his property is north of the Peterson property and his property extends into the wetlands. He stated that he moved to his property in 1997 and was involved in the development of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan, attending every meeting as a resident to provide input. He stated that at that time the desire was to keep the area rural and low density but noted that over time changes were made. He stated that a few years ago the City Council was pushing for townhomes on Clydesdale, and even with objections from residents, the City Council allowed that development to go in. He stated that now the City wants to take property surrounded by residential properties and push in a gas station or similar commercial development. He noted that the site is also surrounded by wetland and asked the amount of buildable area that would be available on that property. He stated that filling in wetlands to allow commercial development would ruin the character of the area. He stated that every public hearing he has attended has been a public hearing where it has been said that things have already been done. He was unsure the point of a public hearing at that point. He stated that some of these changes will devalue properties, using the example of the Peterson property. He asked the Commission to rethink this plan. Eric Dahmer, 4470 Shorewood Trail, stated that he sits on the HOA Board for Foxberry Farms and noted that he is speaking tonight on his own behalf. He stated that he is hearing concern with the proposed zoning of commercial highway for lots 19 and 15. He stated that within his neighborhood is 138 homes, representing up to 800 residents. He stated that if you add the other two neighborhoods that would be about one fifth of the population of the City of Medina. He stated that the people are concerned because of the nature, feel and density of the proposed zoning compared to the zoning that surrounds the properties. He stated that the commercial development that exists is similar to a home office that has minimal traffic during the daytime. He stated that the concern is with the activity that is allowed within the commercial highway zoning district, such as a gas station or fast food restaurant. He stated that there are lower intensity zoning districts that would ease the minds of some residents. He stated that he would feel a little better with the neighborhood commercial zoning, as that will keep the intensity of the parcel to a much more manageable level. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 5 Craig Theis, 900 Fox Path Court, stated that his family moved to Medina four years ago to a family friendly neighborhood. He stated that they bike around the neighborhood and the thought of a 3.5 story building on that property seems totally out of place. He stated that he also sits on the HOA Board for Foxberry Farms and there is a lot of concern from the residents in that neighborhood. He asked the Commission to think of a different zoning for that parcel. He stated that commercial highway zoning off the highway does not make sense. Kristin Toste, 4650 Foxberry Drive, stated that 20 years ago she and her husband built a home in an open area. She stated that seven years ago her child was involved in an accident at Hackamore and she campaigned to get the stoplight put in. She referenced the high number of accidents at that intersection. She stated that her concern is CR 116 and the additional traffic that a commercial highway development would bring to the area. She believed that the traffic counts are already maxed out and the City does not have any control because it is a County road. She believed that the plan should be amended to move that commercial highway parcel because 116 cannot handle that additional traffic. David Wain, 4442 Bluebell Trail S, referenced parcel 20 and asked for details on the purple area below that parcel. Finke clarified that parcel 20 was subject to a subdivision a few months prior and there has been preliminary approval to divide the property as shown. He stated that the business park designation is a lower intensity designation and therefore would apply to the north parcel. He reviewed the permitted uses within the business park designation. Joe Cavanaugh stated that his family has been farming the land for over 60 years and owns parcel 29, which is a big investment on their part. He stated that when they purchased the property it was zoned for development in 2025. He acknowledged that development has been pushed out. He stated that if the property remained as rural commercial holding it would allow for something in the mean time before the property could be developed with utilities, rather than changing the property to rural residential. He requested to keep the property as rural commercial holding which would allow, they to do something in the interim. Mary Beth Demott, 3075 Wild Flower Trail, stated that her concern is with the properties within the eastern portion of the City. She stated that her concern is with the congestion in that part of Medina. She stated that Plymouth has also developed a large number of homes on that border and asked that those properties not be rezoned to rural residential. She stated that perhaps those properties to moved across Medina Road along Holy Name Road. She asked that the property be left as farmland. Albers closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. Albers reviewed the options for the Planning Commission, noting that a recommendation could be made to the City Council or the Commission could ask staff to review the comments made tonight to determine if there are changes that should be made. Williams asked how the overall planning would be impacted if some parcels are removed tonight. Finke explained that the City has until May to determine the official zoning controls that bring the properties into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore action does not have to occur tonight. He stated that there are properties in the City that are already zoned within these specific zoning districts and therefore adjusting the zoning districts themselves would have ramifications on those other properties. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and if a change is proposed to that plan, an amendment would need to be made to the plan. He stated that the Metropolitan Council would review the Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 6 amendment based on their system statement and mandates for the City. He stated that there could be implications depending upon the changes that are made. Nester stated that she would like to have more discussion related to the commercial highway parcels and the parcel requiring 24 units on two acres providing the parcel numbers 15, 19, 32, and 34. Reid agreed with the comments made by Nester. She referenced parcels 15 and 19 which has an office building across the street. She asked the zoning of that parcel. Finke replied that parcel was developed under a PUD with business park as the underlying designation. Reid stated that perhaps parcels 15 and 19 are zoned to business park which would have a lower intensity use. Finke stated that business and commercial are separate designations within the Comprehensive Plan, with different objectives for each. He reviewed the types of uses that would be allowed under a business use compared to commercial use. Reid asked if there has been communication with the owners of parcel. Finke stated that the property owner called with questions but not with interest in construction. Reid stated that business park seems like it may be a better fit because of the adjacent uses and asked if an amendment would be needed to the Comprehensive Plan. Finke agreed that an amendment would be needed but noted that would be straightforward and would not impact the system statements and projections of the City. He stated that business would allow warehouse and industrial. He stated that another option would be neighborhood commercial which would lower the intensity of the use. Reid stated that she is also concerned with the properties on Baker Park Road as there needs to be practical guidance as to what can be done on the property. She believed that the City owes the property owners some discussion of what could be done and what would need to change. Amic stated that the discussion tonight has focused on parcels 15, 19, 32, 34, and 29 and the parcels off Medina Road. He stated that the parcels on Medina Road were previously discussed and believed that removing that would have major implications. He stated that there were stipulations on buffers and development requirements and therefore he feels confident with the parcels on Medina Road remaining as designated. He referenced parcel 29 and was unsure if there are implications that would result from the request. Finke replied that he did not think there would be implications to the overall Comprehensive Plan if the City considered commercial uses in the Future Development Area as requested by the property owner of parcel 29. He stated that the future development area does not designate a use and those properties have continued to remain as rural until the MUSA extends to that area. He stated that there have not been a lot of businesses on septic and wells. He stated that if the Commission or Council are interested in looking at properties in the long-range plan to open certain properties up for business, he did not believe it would not be inconsistent with the future development area. He commented that the individual property should be reviewed to ensure that the property would be able to support commercial traffic. He stated that there have been failures for businesses that have used septic and well in the past. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 7 Amic echoed the comments that he wants to understand if the City is giving a property owner math they cannot work with. He stated that he would ask to pull property 29 for further review. He stated that parcels 15 and 19 are difficult because of how they are currently zoned. He asked what would happen if the parcels were left as designated as mixed use. Finke stated that the current mixed-use district would not match the commercial designation and therefore one of those would need to change. He stated that when the property was designated as mixed use back in 2010, there were surrounding properties also designated mixed use. Collectively, these parcels could be viewed as having provided a mix of uses. The other parcels all developed with residential uses. The remaining parcels may prove difficult to plan a mix of uses on one acre. He stated that an existing lot can continue to be used as such, the zoning only impacts the redevelopment should the property owner be interested in selling for the purpose of redevelopment rather than the continued use. Amic stated that he would support the comment that perhaps an office park would be more appropriate for those parcels. Albers stated that the comments have all stated that they would like the property to remain as currently zoned. He stated that under the current zoning, there would be a commercial use on the property because of the residential property that was already developed on the broader portion of the overall mixed-use site. Williams asked if there are things that can be done with approvals that would specify buffering and lighting requirements to minimize the impacts on the adjacent residential properties. Finke stated that he believes the City does a good job of enacting such requirements. He stated that there are different requirements in the different zoning districts, providing examples from neighborhood commercial. Williams agreed with the comments that have been made regarding 29, 32, and 34. She stated that in regard to parcels 15 and 19, she understands the concerns with traffic in that area. She asked if there is a way to work with the HOA to limit what could be built on that property or to allow additional input from the HOA. Finke agreed that is part of the reason the Commission holds a public hearing. He stated that staff can continue to have conversations with individuals, but the zoning would have the tools to limit what could be constructed. Williams stated that she would be leaning more towards neighborhood commercial, as that would seem less intensive and match the comments that were made by a resident regarding the hours of operation and low traffic. Finke stated that if the parcels are not to be planned for commercial development, one would need to decide what use the parcel would be planned for. If residential, what density would be developed, recognizing it is at the intersection of an arterial and collector roadway, adjacent to office uses. Nester stated that it seems that the parcel is a continuation of the business across the road because of the separation of the wetland between the residential and the busy road. Amic agreed that a continuation of a low intensity commercial use would be appropriate. Finke stated that the commercial neighborhood district is not applied to any other properties in the City, and therefore making changes to the zoning district would not have impacts on any other properties in the Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 8 City, therefore additional restrictions could be made to that zoning district if desired. He stated that there may be additional opportunities to use commercial neighborhood in the future. Albers thanked everyone for attending the meeting and providing input tonight. He stated that the job of the Commission is to make a recommendation for the City Council to consider. He stated that he is leaning towards approving the amendment removing parcels 15, 19, 32 and 29 to have further discussion at a future meeting. Nester asked if commercial neighborhood could be recommended for 15 and 19 as that zoning district could be tweaked in the future. Reid stated that she does not feel that she knows enough at this time to make that recommendation and therefore would support removing the parcels mentioned for further discussion. Albers noted that another option would be to table the amendment entirely to continue the discussion while the other option would be to recommend adoption of the amendment except for the parcels mentioned (15, 19, 29, 32, and 34). He stated that he would prefer recommending the parcels as proposed, holding back parcels 15, 19, 29, 32, and 34. Finke stated that if the City is going to review 32 and 34, those are similar to two other properties that are proposed to be similarly zoned, noting parcels 6, 8, 9, and 10. He stated that while those property owners did not make comment, it would be a similar issue and logic. Amic asked if the request from the property owner of parcel 29 could be approved without implications. Albers stated that could probably be done for the entire strip. There was a comment from a resident that stated that he is happy with the designation of rural residential for the properties near him, parcels 27 and 28. He stated that he does not oppose the change for parcel 29. Finke stated that because there are similar circumstances, he would advocate looking at all the parcels and not just the property owners that spoke. He stated that the Commission can continue discussion on the entire ordinance, with the discussion focused on the input received tonight, as there is not a rushed need for a decision. He stated that it seemed that the Planning Commission is open to a neighborhood commercial zoning for parcels 15 and 19. He stated that it might be helpful if the public is interested in providing input on a possible designation of neighborhood commercial. There was a comment that Mr. Peterson could sell his home and the property could remain as a home. He was unsure if a buyer would be able to purchase the property and remain in the home. He asked what could be built on that pad without the properties developing in conjunction, noting that it would need to be a small business as the buildable area of the site is limited. Amic agreed that whatever commercial use would need to be a smaller less intensive use. Finke stated that there are interim uses allowed for uses that exist prior to the change in zoning. He stated that the home could remain and continue as the use, regardless of the zoning. He stated that protections are built in for transitional zoning changes, he stated that the home would be a permitted use and would not become nonconforming. The resident asked if Mr. Peterson sold his home, could the buyer then remodel and change the home. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 9 Finke confirmed that those protections are built into the transitional zoning district. Another resident commented that parcel 19 is owned by an LLC and is unsure of the buildable space on parcel 19. He stated that normally someone would fill the wetland, but it has been stated that cannot be done and perhaps the LLC is waiting for Mr. Peterson to sell his property in order to construct a project in conjunction. Finke agreed that it would be a reasonable assumption that the properties would be developed together. The resident stated that while people have made comments that the property could be developed as a gas station or fast food restaurant, that is unlikely because of the site layout and buildable area. It was asked and confirmed that the City would not allow an access to that property from CR 116, the access would need to be provided from Meander. A comment was made that commercial highway would not make sense as Medina’s definition of commercial highway is property along Highway 55. Williams stated that it would be helpful to know the amount of buildable land to determine what could potentially be built on the commercial property. Motion by Amic, seconded by Williams, to table the ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, requesting additional information on the parcels discussed in detail 15, 19, 29, 32, 34 and other similar properties. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper and White) Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 2/12/2019 Meeting Minutes 1 Rezoning of 35 Properties in the City to Make Zoning Consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Finke stated that at the last public hearing all 35 properties were discussed, and three areas were discussed more in depth including the proposed Commercial-Highway zoning for the properties at 116 and Meander. He believed that has been addressed with the previous agenda item and would now be proposed for Commercial-Neighborhood zoning. He stated that the second area of discussion was related to the northwest corner of the City, for properties designated for Rural Residential Urban Reserve (RRUR) until future development. He noted that one property owner asked to remain in Rural Business Holding (RBH), which would allow for limited business development on that property. He stated that the third subject related to the R-4 zoning district, as there were concerns raised as to whether the density could be achieved based on the requirement of that district. He identified the properties in the northwest corner of the City identified for future development, and highlighted property 29, which was interested in RBH rather than RRUR. He stated that staff does not believe that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but there would be concerns with which properties are allowed to have commercial development as some roads in that area would not be conducive to business development because of road restrictions. He stated that staff is not recommending any property to be RBH and would continue to recommend RRUR. He moved to the southwest corner of the City and highlighted the properties proposed to be zoned R-4 and stated that staff sketched out a plan which would accommodate 13 to 14 units per acre on a two-acre site. He stated that the property owner also consulted with an architect that stated that a higher density could even be achieved on the property. He stated that staff had discussion with the property owner, who expressed an interest in developing at a lower density than the 12-15 units per acre. He stated that staff would recommend rezoning to that district to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that even though the density range is 12 to 15 units in the Comprehensive Plan, additional flexibility of -10 percent or +20 percent could be considered in order to encourage other objectives of the City. He stated that the City has a good deal of discretion when rezoning properties, but it should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, noting that the City has until May to make properties consistent in zoning with the Comprehensive Plan. Amic asked the process of a property owner in the RRUR district if they would like to consider a business that would be allowed under RBH. Finke stated that a property owner could request a rezoning of the property. He stated that the RBH district would lower the types of businesses that would be allowed because of the limited access to water. Galzki asked if there has been any interest from other property owners in that area related to changing the designation. Finke stated that he has not received any similar requests. He stated that an adjoining property owner to parcel 29, would prefer to have RRUR. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Joe Cavanaugh provided a photograph of his property and the other four properties considered for rezoning as well as other properties in the vicinity that have access to Highway 55. He stated that 15 years ago his property was changed to Rural Commercial. He stated that development has slowed, and it will now be another 15 to 20 years before development could occur. He stated that he would prefer his property to remain Rural Commercial which would allow for some type of development to occur while the land remains in holding status. He stated that there are building on his property already, one which is used for an office and will be used for pot making, barns that are used for boat storage, and a home that is being rented for residential use. He noted that his property does have access to Highway 55. He stated Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 2/12/2019 Meeting Minutes 2 that if they were to change the use, they would most likely add another building for additional boat storage. He stated that the other properties that would also be included do not have any commercial activity currently. He stated that the other photographs are across from these properties proposed to be rezoned and have a much more intense commercial use that he would be proposing. He noted that he would be proposing light commercial development if there were to make changes. He explained that he is simply looking for cash flow options until the property can be developed in the future. He confirmed that he would only be looking to utilize the access off Highway 55. Williams stated that there is a box marked on the picture marked 26 with multiple vehicles and asked for details. Finke stated that is the old Loretto towing and is not included for rezoning. Cavanaugh stated that there is another property, the old saloon, which also has access to Highway 55. He stated that they have a building and direct access to Highway 55 and would just like to be able to continue to do what they are doing. Finke stated that there is relatively recent commercial activity but noted that it has not been reviewed by staff recently. He stated that previously there were three residential homes on the property being used by family members. Finke provided details on what would type of activity that would be allowed under RBH, noting that it would be based off water usage. Cavanaugh noted that there are things on his property which could be cleaned up. He stated that the RBH zoning would allow another barn to be constructed which would allow them to clean up other dilapidated structures on the property. Reid asked if just the one property could be rezoned to RBH, rather than all the properties being rezoned. Finke stated that he has had discussions with the property owner on this subject as this process has gone along. He stated that a solar garden or solar panels was mentioned as a possibility and would be allowed in the RRUR district, which would also provide some opportunities and less intensive traffic use. Cavanaugh stated that after checking into it further, Xcel limits the amount of solar garden activity and being that there is a large location across the street, the capacity is taken for the area. Reid stated that she believes the request by the Cavanaughs is reasonable. Larry Palm stated that it appears that his property has been separated in zoning from the other neighboring properties. Finke stated that there are improvement homes on 32 and 34, and therefore those would be proposed for the R-4 district as they are connected to sewer and water. He noted that 31 is not connected to sewer and water and is vacant and therefore would be proposed for RRUR until the staging time when it would be changed to R-4. Palm stated that 34 is not connected to sewer and water. He stated that he paid for the sewer and water connection to come over to the area, but it does not connect to the north currently. He stated that his tenant moved out and the home is in such disrepair that it is no longer habitable. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 2/12/2019 Meeting Minutes 3 Finke stated that staff would not be opposed to a zoning of RRUR for 34 but is unsure that is what Mr. Palm would want. Palm stated that the City and the Metropolitan Council are now acting as developers to determine how his property will be developed. He believes that the apartment/condo market will bubble out in two years and his property cannot be developed until that time, which will mean that he will continue to sit on a property that he has already sat on for ten years. He stated that he is not asking for a change in zoning, noting that his zoning has continued to change throughout the time he has owned the property which has limited his ability to do anything with the property. He stated that he continues to pay taxes on a property that is not developable. He stated that 12 to 15 units with a ten percent variable does nothing for him. Amic asked the perfect scenario for Mr. Palm. Palm stated that he would like a low range residential. He stated that he would not want one single-home but would not want to be forced into an apartment complex. He stated that his ideal use would be whatever he can market the property for. He stated that previously he invested a lot of money in a potential senior development, which went across the street because of problems with the City process. Finke stated that he believes that the question would be more of a Comprehensive Plan question rather than a zoning question as the zoning would need to match the density of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that if there were a project, the project could move forward in 2021 and noted the process that would be necessary for approvals. Palm stated that he is asking for the marketing opportunities to be expanded within the residential market. Finke stated that the minimum units per acre that the Metropolitan Council that the City receives credit for is eight units per acre, but the City chose to use the higher density range during the Comprehensive Plan process. He stated that if the density were lowered on smaller properties, two acres in size, the density mandates of the Metropolitan Council would still be met. Palm stated that his neighbor to the north is zoned with the same requirements but is sitting on half an acre. He stated that eight units per acre would still be a challenge. Piper asked if a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required to change the minimum density of the site to eight units and whether that would impact other densities in the City. Finke stated that these two properties could be changed to eight units per acre without impacting other properties. Nester asked if the Comprehensive Plan amendment process would need to start now. Finke stated that by May, the property should be zoned consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would take four to six months, which is beyond this timeline. Reid stated that she is not comfortable with what has been done to this property and asked if staff could talk to the property owner to find a solution. Finke stated that the City could talk with the property owner about a potential Comprehensive Plan amendment. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 2/12/2019 Meeting Minutes 4 Amic stated that he would recommend that the City Council consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment in this case for properties 32 and 34. Reid asked if the other property owner has interest in working with this property owner. Palm replied that property owner is not interested in working with him. Reid stated that two acres zoned for high density is a bit baffling. Finke stated that this is not the only two-acre site zoned for high density residential. Williams stated that she would also recommend an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for parcels 32 and 34. Piper asked if the Commission would want to recommend an amendment until they know what they would recommend. Finke stated that he can follow up with the Metropolitan Council in attempt to gain additional input on the amendment process. Reid stated that she is uncomfortable with the two issues and suggested taking action tonight only on the Commercial-Neighborhood properties to allow further discussion on the other two issues. Finke stated that R-4 would be the appropriate zoning for these properties and the property or City could initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment following that as the properties need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan prior to May. Reid stated that the Commission could approve the rezonings as proposed, and those property owners could then come forward with zoning changes or Comprehensive Plan amendments. Piper stated that she would support the City making the recommendation for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, rather than placing that burden on the property owner. Williams asked if parcel 29 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Finke stated that property could be left off at this time, as that would simply be a zoning change. He noted that perhaps the Commission should consider the other four parcels for similar zoning. Amic stated that those property owners could have shown up. He stated that those other folks have therefore lost their turn and, in his opinion, he would like to move on the properties that do not have questions. Reid closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Williams stated that property 29 seems to be the only property giving the Commission pause. Finke suggested holding 26, 27, 28, 29 and 33 back as they would all be zoned similarly. He noted that RBH is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore a decision would not need to be made on those properties prior to May. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 2/12/2019 Meeting Minutes 5 Motion by Williams, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, excluding properties 26, 27, 28, 29, and 33 and recommending that the City file a Comprehensive Plan amendment for parcels 32 and 34. Motion carries unanimously. Finke stated that the intent would be to present the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district and the rezoning to the City Council at the March 5th City Council meeting. 1 Dusty Finke From:Jeff Sams <jeffsams90@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 2:06 PM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Proposed Rezoning Mr. Finke, I'm writing to offer feedback and ask a question or two about the proposed re‐zoning by the intersection or Brockton Lane and Medina Road. My family of 6 lives at 3014 Wild Flower Trail very close to this area. We enjoy looking out our windows at the Hatcher's barn. What type of development is allowed in "Urban Reserve" areas that are being proposed? My hope is that it is single family homes with only a minimal amount (if any at all) of town homes and ZERO apartment buildings. Apartment buildings significantly change the nature of neighborhoods and property values. I believe the City of Medina should only allow apartments building along major highways (highway 55). Many Twin Cities suburbs seem to do this. Thanks in advance for your feedback and consideration. Jeff Sams 1 Dusty Finke From:Tom Rocco <tomroccomba@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 02, 2018 11:40 AM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Notice Regarding Proposed Rezonings Hello Dusty: My name is Tom Rocco and I am a Medina resident in the Foxberry community. I am located at 4235 Foxberry Court. On Friday I received a letter from the city advising me of proposed zoning changes that are to occur within 350 feet of my property line. Specifically, areas 15 and 19 will be rezoned for "Commercial" use. While I do plan to attend the hearing on this matter I would like to make you aware of my specific concerns regarding the proposal as well as the manner in which this notification was made. Issues with Proposal We live in, and purchased a home in a residential neighborhood. Homes, including mine, look out at and surround what is being proposed as commercial property. We chose to live in (and invest in) Medina and not a heavily commercialized area like Plymouth or Eden Prairie to avoid just this type of scenario. The negative impact to home values resulting from this change could be very significant - increased traffic, noise, pollution, disruption to wild life, and potentially obstructed views indicate to me that this was a poorly planned/researched proposal. Why is the town pushing Commercial expansion into residential areas as opposed to along 55? Issues with Notification 1. Very minimal advanced notification of the public hearing was provided. 2. Only a small handful of residents were informed of this proposal by mail. Limiting the notification to only homes within 350 feet of the proposed change virtually guarantees minimal representation at the hearing. If the city was truly interested in resident input then surely greater efforts should have been made to notify the community. While I'm sure that the law was followed with respect to these communications, my perception is that this proposal was intended to slip through under the radar. I am making every effort to inform my neighbors and the broader community of this proposal. I would like my written commentary to be provided at the Public Hearing. Please know that I strongly oppose the proposal and look forward to hearing your perspective on the matter. Thank You To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Tom Rocco 1 Dusty Finke From:brad hoven <bradhoven@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 04, 2018 9:02 PM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Suzette Nordstrom Subject:rezoning parcel 15 and 19 December 4, 2018 Re: Proposed rezoning meeting December 11th My name is Brad Hoven. My wife Suzette Nordstrom and I own and live at 4200 Foxberry Court Medina, MN 55340. We have owned our home since 2003. We received your letter on November 30th since our property is connected to parcel 15 and within 350 feet of parcel 19. I will be attending the meeting Dec 11th and also wanted to make sure our comments- and concerns are noted prior. We are opposed to the rezoning of parcel 15 and 19. The rezoning affects us directly, as our property is directly to the north of proposed rezone property # 15 & #19 along county road 116 or pinto drive. Our concerns are all the normal ones that any property owners would have when a commercial rezoning is proposed next door to them. We have watched Medina go from low density to neighborhoods popping up all around us. More traffic on 116 and home sales softening in Foxberry as new homes choices are readily available. Besides value of our property we ae very concerned about security, increased traffic in and out of the property, vehicle and building noise, parking lot lights, all that will have change the neighborhood. We understand all involved have spent many hours on the comprehensive plan for 2020-2040 Our disappointment comes from the fact that how this proposed rezoning fits into a residential area and to be our new neighbor. We question how these proposed properties 15 and 19 fit into being zoned commercial? These 2 parcels location being zoned commercial appear to be inconsistent with other commercial locations in medina. Parcel 15 and 19 are surrounded by residential properties except for the mixed use property across the road to the south. A majority of the commercial property in Medina is along the highway 55 corridor. Why make this property commercial? What are you seeing as a good fit for this area for commercial? Apartment, restaurant, warehouse, substations, gas stations- those all are not what we were looking for as a neighbor when we purchased our home. This parcels 15 and 19 are currently a natural corridor for wildlife. A place for many species to travel and exist in our ever expanding city. With all the building around us we see more fox, coyote, deer cruising our yard as there homes are moved. We want you to please consider this open space’s value for the neighborhood and home values near by. Therefore, we oppose this proposal to “spot zone” parcel 15 and 19 differently than any surrounding property. We oppose the destruction of a wet- land ecosystem to appease Medina’s zoning system. We oppose any decision by a city government that does not use zoning as it was intended. “To make 2 sure land gets used in a way that promotes both the best use of the land and the prosperity, health & welfare of Medina’s residents. Thank you for your time, see you next week! Brad Hoven 612 805 7540 Bradhoven@gmail.com Suzette Nordstrom 612-817-0595 suznordstrom@gmail.com ‐‐ Brad Hoven 612‐805‐7540 Bradhoven@gmail.com 1 Dusty Finke From:Michelle Cherne <mmcherne@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 06, 2018 8:29 AM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Land development Hi Mr. Finke‐ I am a concerned Foxberry resident near the proposed land development off of Cty 116. We have lived in our house for over 17 years and have been disheartened to see all of the changes that have sprung up around us. We have seen and heard the villa construction for the last couple years from our windows and are extremely unhappy about the proposed rezoning of lots 15 and 19 behind our house. Please try to help us keep the rural integrity of Medina and stop the commercial development. Thank you. Michelle Cherne 4230 Foxberry Court Medina, MN 55340 612‐616‐4841 Sent from my iPhone 1 Dusty Finke From:Debbie Andrews <dsa1952@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 4:42 PM To:Dusty Finke; Kathleen Martin Subject:Rezoning commercial hwy parcel 15 and 19 We cannot make it to the town hearing meeting, please note that my husband and I are definitely against the proposed commercial development! Debbie and Jim Andrews 4667 Medina Lk Dr Foxberry Farms Sent from my iPad 1 Dusty Finke From:chuck.chakrabarti7@gmail.com Sent:Saturday, December 08, 2018 11:16 AM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Proposed Rezoning My name is Subhendu(Chuck) Chakrabarti and I live at 4116 Fairway Drive,Medina,MN 55340. I oppose the rezoning of Lots 15&19 to Commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods is not appropriate for our community.Please keep commercial expansion on HWY 55. Sent from my iPad 1 Dusty Finke From:Jenny Chaplin <artloverjc@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 2:02 PM To:Dusty Finke; Kathleen Martin Subject:Re-zoning Hello, Mr. Finke and Mrs. Martin, My family and I live in Medina in Foxberry Farms. This a small, tight‐knit community. We cherish our peace, calmness, low traffic and beautiful wildlife. If you re‐zone our neighborhood this will increase noise, have more traffic, disrupt wildlife, and will negatively impact home value. Please reconsider re‐zoning!!! Thank you. Hello, My name is Judy Ciora and I have been a resident of Foxberry Farms for over 21 years. We moved from Plymouth to be a resident of this beautiful, country community known as Medina. Over the years, we have seen the changes that have taken place and the farms and country landscape vanishing. This was not the plan that many of the original landowners, farmers, and residents thought would happen. Over the years, we thought our Mayor, Medina City Council, and other people in the planning and welfare of our Medina community were working together to preserve this beautiful area. This new rezoning designation is very troubling and disturbing. I understand that growth of a city is inevitable, but it can be done right. Compassionate planning and preservation of a country community and its residents should be considered 1st! I appose the rezoning of Lots 15 and 19 to Commercial. That lot should continue to be a part of a residential neighborhood and not infringe on the quality of living of residents who are surrounding it and viewing this parcel daily. Also, County Road 116 should be used for residential traffic and not be subject to additional traffic, noise, and a foreign structure. Another concern is the wonderful path along County Road 116 would become more unsafe to the residents who use it with their families and pets. Growth of the HWY 55 corridor makes more sense. #1 You will not be destroying the serenity and safety of already established neighborhoods. #2 New businesses will have more traffic exposure. #3 Develop residential areas around Hwy 55 businesses for people who want a walking experience to the business community of restaurants, shops etc. Make Medina a community with well‐planned residential areas, appropriate business locations, and preserve the country and relaxed environment that many of us moved here to enjoy! Thank you, Judy Ciora 915 Sunset Court Foxberry Farms 1 Dusty Finke From:Luke Hammer <lwhammer@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, December 07, 2018 10:14 PM To:Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Lorie Cousineau; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke Subject:Rezoning Lots 15 and 19 Hello my name is Luke Hammer and I live at 4730 Settlers Ct in Medina MN. I was notified of the rezoning of lots 15 and 19 to commercial. I feel strongly that this is not appropriate for our community, as this is a residential neighborhood. Please keep commercial expansion on Hwy 55. We spent 3 years watching the Foxberry Farms neighborhood until the right house came on the market for us. We love the rural feel of the area, the mature wooded lots and the close knit neighborhood. Please keep this area as wild as we can so my kids can continue to see deer, fox, turkeys and other wildlife out our back door. Thank you for your time and consideration as an elected official representing me and my family. Sincerely Luke Hammer 1 Dusty Finke From:Rachel Hammer <rachelanne2121@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 09, 2018 2:50 PM To:Luke Hammer Cc:Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Lorie Cousineau; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke Subject:Re: Rezoning Lots 15 and 19 Hi, my name is Rachel Hammer. I live at 4730 Settlers Court, Medina, MN, part of the Foxberry Farms neighborhood. Please do not rezone lots 15 and 19 for commercial use. We are a quite residential area and would like to keep it this way. We are not interested in increased traffic, lights, noise etc that this would likely bring. We feel very strongly this is not appropriate for our community. Please keep commercial expansion on Highway 55. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Rachel Hammer On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 10:14 PM Luke Hammer <lwhammer@yahoo.com> wrote: Hello my name is Luke Hammer and I live at 4730 Settlers Ct in Medina MN. I was notified of the rezoning of lots 15 and 19 to commercial. I feel strongly that this is not appropriate for our community, as this is a residential neighborhood. Please keep commercial expansion on Hwy 55. We spent 3 years watching the Foxberry Farms neighborhood until the right house came on the market for us. We love the rural feel of the area, the mature wooded lots and the close knit neighborhood. Please keep this area as wild as we can so my kids can continue to see deer, fox, turkeys and other wildlife out our back door. Thank you for your time and consideration as an elected official representing me and my family. Sincerely Luke Hammer 1 Dusty Finke From:Kyle Hanson <kylehanson23@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 8:44 PM To:Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Lorie Cousineau; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke Subject:Input on Commericial zoning proposal. Dearest representatives, My name is Kyle Hanson and I live at 1161 Jubert Trail in Medina. I recently saw a proposal for zoning updates and wanted to express my input and concern regarding zones 15 and 19. I am opposed to either of these being turned into commercial. Between the two, I am most strongly opposed to zone 15 as this would have substantial impact to a beautiful wildlife area and would sit in the middle of 3 neighboring residential areas. This is also an already extremely busy intersection including lots of bikers and children. I understand the benefit and need to expand commercial and residential areas within our city at an appropriate pace but believe the areas along Hwy 55 are better suited for this purpose. I hope my input is considered when it comes time for zoning and expansion decisions. Thank you for your continued service in keeping Medina a beautiful city. Kyle Hanson 1 Dusty Finke From:Tena Harty <tenajune@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 07, 2018 11:10 AM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Commercial development on 116 Mr. Finke, My Name is Tena Harty and I live at 1100 Foxtail Dr. I oppose the rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 to Commercial. Commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods isn’t appropriate for our community, and is not appreciated. Please keep Commercial Expansion on HWY 55. Regards, Tena Harty Sent from my iPhone 1 Dusty Finke From:Carol Hagan Hazzard <hazzhome@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 2:08 PM To:Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Lorie Cousineau; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke Subject:PROPOSED MEDINA RE-ZONING Hello: My name is Carol Hazzard and I live at 4550 Medina Lake Dr, Medina. I have lived in Medina in the Foxberry Farms subdivision for 20+ years. Over that time, my family & I have witnessed tremendous growth in our immediate area, much of which I believe has been positive for residents of our community. The proposed zoning change for parcels 15 and 19, which are adjacent to Foxberry does not seem to enhance the residential appeal of Medina, rather it detracts from it. I oppose the re‐zoning of Lots 15 & 19 to Commercial. Commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods isn’t appropriate for our community. Please keep Commercial Expansion on Hwy. 55. Sincerely, Carol Hazzard 1 Dusty Finke From:kbur <kburkej7@netscape.net> Sent:Sunday, December 09, 2018 8:11 PM To:Dusty Finke; Kathleen Martin Subject:Concerns regarding re-zoning next to Foxberry Farms We are very concerned about how the proposed re-zoning may affect property values in our neighborhood. In hopes of reaching individuals truly motivated to serving the public good and not developers' agendas, the change in zoning should be put on hold until a proposed plan for development that is sensitive to the surrounding area is constructed and approved. I will participate with other in our neighborhood and hope to attend a public hearing on this matter. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. K. Burke Johnson 1 Dusty Finke From:bkuehl@mchsi.com Sent:Sunday, December 09, 2018 4:20 PM To:Dusty Finke; Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Lorie Cousineau; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers Subject:Proposed Re-Zoning at 116/Meander Road Dear Medina Officials: My name is Bruce Kuehl and my wife Ranelle and I live at 4508 Medina Lake Drive in Medina. We have lived in Foxberry Farms for over 16 years. We moved out to Medina because of it's quiet country like feel with large open spaces and lots of wildlife. We have experienced many changes in those 16 years and feel our quiet community of Medina is growing too fast. It is interesting to hear how many government officials over the years (including this past election) run on a platform of "managed growth." Unfortunately, I think all too often these campaign promises are swept to the side after the election. We oppose the rezoning of lots 15 and 19 because of the negative impact it would have on our neighborhood. We would experience more traffic in this extremely high traffic area as it is, more noise and a drop in property values as we struggle to hold our own anyway with all the new building going on in the area. Please don't allow this commercial building directly next to our amazing neighborhood. This is not good for our community and further pushes wildlife out of our area. Please keep commercial development away from our residential neighborhood and keep along the many miles of highway 55. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bruce and Ranelle Kuehl 1 Dusty Finke From:Amy Litwak <amylitwak@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 4:38 PM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Proposed re-zoning of Parcels 15 and 19 We live at 4540 Medina Lake Dr in Medina. We oppose the rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 to Commercial. Commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods isn’t appropriate for our community. We are concerned about the immediate impact as well as the precedent this sets. Please keep Commercial Expansion on HWY 55. Thank you, Amy & Jesse Litwak Transcribed voicemail: Richard Lu 4205 Shorewood Trail Message: I would like to express my opinion that I oppose the rezoning of Lot 15 and 19 to commercial. Commercial zoning in our residential neighborhood is inappropriate for our community, it affects us significantly because I can see that it is very close to house here. Please keep the commercial expansion on Highway 55. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, To the Mayor, Council, and Planning Director, I am writing to oppose the re‐zoning of lots 15 and 19, on the northwest corner of County Road 116 and Meander Road, proposed to become commercial plots. I understand this is to be discussed on Tuesday, December 11th, and am sorry I will be unable to express these perspectives in person. I have lived in Medina for over 3 years, having moved my young family here from Minneapolis for the community, the schools, and the proximity to “urban” enjoyments of life combined with a more rural, tranquil setting. When I have attended Medina Celebration Days and stopped by the Planner’s booth, I was pleased to hear recognition of this unique combination and a desire to preserve this mix – in the City’s official new resident guide, in fact, this focus is noted when explaining the history of Medina: “Now, Medina is a prosperous, suburban edge City and, as its population rises over 5,000, its residents are eager to preserve its rural heritage.” Re‐zoning lots 15 and 19 would do none of those things – it would not improve the suburban quality of life, and it would not preserve Medina’s rural tranquility. Lots 15 and 19 are well‐off highway 55, across the street from an office park that is barely inhabited – there is not market demand for additional commercial development, and allowing commercial building would remove this residential buffer. Further, it would tax an already over‐taxed infrastructure: Highway 116 was widened this past year, reflecting significant use from developments to the north that have already brought additional traffic and noise to the area, and 116 still struggles to accommodate this volume during rush hour. Further commercial development at lot 15 and 19 is unwarranted, and unwise: it is not market‐ demanded, it is not resident‐demanded, and will bring nothing new to the broader Medina community – but it would allow unneeded commercial structures to infringe upon residential quality of life, and would further burden an already‐burdened section of infrastructure, in a way that could not be undone for decades to come (if at all). I urge you to deny this request for rezoning, prioritizing Medina’s mix of suburban quality of life with rural tranquility – there’s no need to become Plymouth, with its rash of pop‐up small‐plot developments, random intermingled commercial structures, and general suburban sprawl. Medina is different, and that’s why we’re all here – not there. There is plenty of room alongside Highway 55 to accommodate additional commercial development if it’s truly needed, and no need to expand beyond that already‐established corridor. Please deny this re‐zoning proposal, helping preserve what made us choose Medina as our family home. Thank you, Patrick & Sarah Lyon 4680 Medina Lake Drive Medina, MN 55340 1 Dusty Finke From:Eram Mashadi <eram.mashadi@wayzataschools.org> Sent:Thursday, December 06, 2018 8:17 PM To:Dusty Finke Cc:In Case Of Emergency (ICE) Subject:Re: proposed commercial zoning... Hello Sir, We are residents of Foxberry Farms and received a letter in the mail regarding proposed rezoning of land for commercial purposes. We have been working with local Medina neighbors and foresee this project to be an unfit venture due to many negative reasons. We urge kindly for this project not to take place. We will be at the hearing next Tuesday but we wanted to share our honest perspective regarding this matter. Kind Regards, Eram Mashadi, MA Ed Teacher of EL (English Learners) Wayzata Public Schools 763‐745‐5643 1 Dusty Finke From:Wajih Mashadi <wmashadi@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 9:51 AM To:Kathleen Martin Cc:Dusty Finke; Jeff Pederson; Lorie Cousineau; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers Subject:Rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 My name is Wajih Mashadi and I live at 4265 Foxberry Court, Medina MN 55340-9390. I oppose the rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 to Commercial. Commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods is not appropriate for our community. Please keep Commercial Expansion on HWY 55. I will be attend the Upcoming Public Hearing on this Matter on Tuesday, December 11th, at 7:00p at the Council Chambers of City Hall (2052 County Road 24). Thank you. Wajih Mashadi 4265 Foxberry Court Medina MN 55340-9390 1 Dusty Finke From:tmert@popp.net Sent:Friday, December 07, 2018 9:41 AM To:Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Lorie Cousineau; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers Subject:Lots 15 and 19 Rezoning My name is Tom Mertens, my wife, Paula and I, live at 4205 Foxberry Court. Our property is adjacent to Lot 15 and is directly north of both Lots 15 and 19. We have lived at this address for over 20 years and were one of the first homes built on our street. We both oppose the rezoning of Lots 15 and 19 from Multi‐Use to Commercial Highway and feel that the commercial zoning should be along the 55 corridor and not adjacent to residential zoning. The area west of County Road 116, north of Meander Road and south of Hackamore should be strictly residential. Spot zoning and sticking a commercial property directly adjacent to residential property (without a road separating them) will have a negative impact to homeowners both in Foxberry Farms and the community on the east side of County Road 116 along the golf course. This negative impact will include increased noise pollution, increased traffic, loss of wildlife, impact on the wetlands and watershed, and a decrease in property values. Commercial zoning of these two lots indicates that the City of Medina has a concrete plan for the use of this property once the sale of Lot 19 is completed. I suspect that Rolling Green Business Park, LLC will purchase Lot 19 and has a plan for Lots 15 and 19. Are you able to share that plan with us? Once again, we oppose the rezoning of these two lots and feel that not only should they not be rezoned to commercial, but should be appropriately zoned to residential or used as a buffer zone between residential and the commercial properties to the south of Meander Road. Tom and Paula Mertens 1 Dusty Finke From:Paula Mertens <pmertens@popp.com> Sent:Friday, December 07, 2018 1:33 PM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Lots 15 and 19 Hello – I live at 4205 Foxberry Court, Medina MN 55340. I strongly oppose the rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 to Commercial.- it should be zoned residential. Commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods isn’t appropriate for our community. Please keep Commercial Expansion on HWY 55. All the property surrounding these lots are residential or a protected wet land and should stay that way. Which is what we were told by the city when we purchased our property via the assessment report. Future more, the wet land acts as a water shed to protect us homeowners when it rains by allowing the water to run off our property into the wet lands. If you change this our homes will flood more than they already do. We currently have two sump pumps to keep up with the water that runs through that area, and a generator to ensure the sump pumps can run when we have a power outage. . Thank you for your support, Paula Mertens The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Its contents (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient you must not use, disclose, disseminate, copy or print its contents. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete and destroy the message. Thank you for complying with this request. 1 Dusty Finke From:Kellie Mondell <kellie.mondell@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 09, 2018 3:17 PM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Foxberry Farms Hello Dusty, I live in Foxberry Farms and you have the neighborhood extremely distraught. We do not want the land rezoned for commercial use. Many of us chose to move out to this part of town for the peace and quiet. We ask that you do not change the rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 to commercial property. This will negatively impact the value of our home and general contentment with the surrounding area. Thank you Kellie and Clint Mondell 1 Dusty Finke From:krismrosak@mchsi.com Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 5:58 AM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Kathleen Martin Subject:Proposed re-zoning Hi, I am emailing you regarding the proposed rezoning of two parcels in Medina. I am opposed to the consideration of the rezoning of lots #15 & #19 to Commercial. I request that Commercial development be kept to the Hwy 55 corridor. I have lived in Foxberry Farms since it was developed, not imagining that commercial property would be adjacent to the development of neighborhoods. I have seen a lot of development and changes over the years in Medina. We do not need increased traffic on 116 along with the noise that comes with it. We need to keep the beauty of our neighborhoods and the idea of commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods isn't appropriate for our community. It is important to maintain the quality of our community and values of our homes. I hope that you will consider the interests of all the homeowners who work hard to keep up their homes and value of their neighborhoods who have expressed opposition to the rezoning. Regards, Kris Mrosak 1 Dusty Finke From:John Murphy <john@johnmurphyhomes.com> Sent:Sunday, December 09, 2018 2:22 PM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Kathleen Martin; Janet Murphy Subject:County Road 116 / Meander Road Commercial Development Hi Dusty, I hope you're doing well! We just wanted to voice our concern about the proposed rezoning of the property located on the northwest corner of County Road 116 and Meander. We've heard that it's being proposed to change to Commercial Highway. Janet and I will go on record as being against this proposal. We'd prefer to see something more residential, have lower height restrictions and not be commercial. Thanks for your consideration! John Murphy ‐ 763‐443‐9821 Designated Managing Broker/REALTOR® | MN License #40059306 | ND License #10049 eXp Realty LLC ‐ www.JohnMurphyHomes.com eXp Realty is breaking growth records in the real estate industry. Take 7 minutes to learn why so many agents are joining https://www.agentbuilderpro.com/client/john‐murphy REALTORS® LEARN MORE about eXp at http://johnmurphy.exprealty.careers ______________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE: Never trust wiring instructions sent via email. Always independently confirm wiring instructions in person or via a telephone call to a trusted and verified phone number. Never wire money without double-checking that the wiring instructions are correct. 1 Dusty Finke From:Nissen Adam USMN <adam.nissen@syngenta.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 7:45 AM To:Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Lorie Cousineau; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke Subject:Northwest Corner of County Rd 116 and Meander Rd rezoning Hello All – My Name is Adam Nissen and we live at 4512 Medina Lake Drive. I oppose the rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 to Commercial. Commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods isn’t appropriate for our community. Please keep Commercial Expansion on Highway 55. County Road 116 is already too dangerous with the recent housing expansion without proper roadways and controls. When we moved to our house 5 years ago it was a great area and now we are considering moving out of Medina due to the uncontrolled expansion along 116. Regards, Adam Adam Nissen, P.E. Engineering Project Manager Capital Projects Group Syngenta 11055 Wayzata Blvd Minnetonka, MN 55305 direct : +01.612.656.8179 mobile : +01.612.360.5411 fax : +01.612.656.8532 Email: adam.nissen@syngenta.com Website: www.syngenta.com The information contained in this e‐mail is confidential and may be legally privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. This e‐mail is intended solely for the use of the above named recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient or person responsible for delivery of this e‐mail to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e‐mail in error and that any review, dissemination, disclosure, copying or other use of this e‐mail or its content is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e‐mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and destroy this e‐mail. Thank you. This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the designated recipient, please notify the sender immediately, and delete the original and any copies. Any use of the message by you is prohibited. 1 Dusty Finke From:Betty Gray Olson <bettygolson@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 6:25 PM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Zoning Sir, I am sending this email in response to the proposed zoning in my area. The area I am concerned about are Parcels 15 and 19. I would have expected those to be residential and not commercial. I enjoy walking and biking around Lake Medina and always thought that a formal trail would be designated. A portion of that trail is Meander Road and a sidewalk exists for part of it. I would like to see the North side of Meander Road maintain a residential zoning category and make the walk around Medina a family friendly walk or bike ride. The new park off Meander Road is also really nice and I would like to see the area around it remain residential. Sincerely, Betty Olson 1155 Settlers Road 1 Dusty Finke From:James Parkhurst <jim.t.parkhurst@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 4:48 PM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Cindy Parkhurst Subject:Rezoning of NW Corner of 116 and Meander Rd Hello Dusty, My name is Jim Parkhurst and my wife Cindy and I have lived in Foxberry Farms for over 17 years at 4700 Medina Lake Drive. We have seen much development in our area take place during that time – some good, some not so good. I understand that the Northwest Corner of County 116 and Meander Road is slated for Commercial rezoning as part of the city’s comprehensive plan. My reason for reaching out to you is to let you know that we OPPOSED to rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 to Commercial. It is not at all appropriate for our residential neighborhood. As a resident of Foxberry Farms, I see many negative results with this proposal.  Traffic will increase even more so on Pinto Drive. It is already extremely busy.  More traffic noise and overall pollution.  The wildlife in Foxberry has already dwindled and this will do even more harm to it.  Potential of furthering the decrease in property value. The bottom line is that all commercial expansion should be kept directly on Highway 55! Please don’t disrupt our residential neighborhoods. I hope that you will be taking this into consideration and stop the expansion. Best Regards, Jim and Cindy Parkhurst 1 Dusty Finke From:Vicki Rahn <vrassbachrahn@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 7:34 AM To:Dusty Finke; Vicki Rahn; Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; lorie.cousineau@medinmn.gov; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers Subject:Rezoning of lots 15 and 19 My name is Vicki Rahn and I oppose the rezoning of Lots 15 and 19 to Commercial. Commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods is not appropriate for our community. Please keep Commercial Expansion on Highway 55. I use and appreciate the walking trail along County Road 116 on almost a daily basis ‐ crossing at the intersection of Meander and Co. Rd 116 is already a challenge. We do not need more traffic ‐ including delivery trucks in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. 1 Dusty Finke From:Chris Rahn <chriserahn@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 5:02 PM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Parcel 15 And 19 My name is Chris Rahn and I oppose the rezoning of Lots 15 and 19 to Commercial. We do not need more traffic on 116 or noise near our homes. Thank you for your consideration. 1 Dusty Finke From:Vidyotham Reddi <vidyotham@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 1:40 PM To:Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Lorie Cousineau; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke Subject:Oppose Rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 to Commercial in Medina (Northwest Corner of County Rd 116 and Meander Rd) Importance:High To the Mayor and Council Members of Medina City, My name is, Vidyotham Reddi, and our residence is at 4225 Shorewood Trail, Medina, MN 55340 (Foxberry Farms Sub‐ Division). I oppose the rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 to Commercial (Northwest Corner of County Rd 116 and Meander Rd). Commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods isn’t appropriate for our community. Please keep Commercial Expansion on HWY 55. I am unable to attend the upcoming Public Hearing on this matter on Tuesday, December 11th, at 7pm in the Council Chambers of City Hall (2052 County Road 24), due to business travel but would greatly appreciate the acknowledgement of my opinion via this e‐mail Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Regards, Vidyotham Ph: (763) 221 9281 1 Dusty Finke From:Jessica Seibenick <jessica.seibenick@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 7:51 AM To:Dusty Finke; Kathleen Martin Subject:AGAINST COMMERCIAL ZONING Medina Parcel 15 and 19 As a Medina resident I am AGAINST this proposal to make parcel 15 and 19 commercial. I do NOT want more noise. I do NOT want more traffic. I do NOT want disruption to wildlife in our area. I am AGAINST the NEGATIVE impact this will have on my home value. I do NOT want this to be re‐zoned. Jessica Seibenick Medina Resident 1 Dusty Finke From:Tom Swanson <tom.swanson@swansonflo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 12:49 PM To:Kathleen Martin Cc:Amy Swanson (amyswanson950@outlook.com); Dusty Finke Subject:FW: FOX-Rezoning of NW Corner of 116 and Meander Rd Hi Kathleen, Thank you for all of the clarifications. I appreciate all of the background. I don’t think too many of us in Foxberry Farms were aware of the current zoning for the parcels 15 and 19. The current zoning of “Mixed Use” isn’t very clear as to what that actually means and it doesn’t appear on the surface to cause as much concern as “Commercial – Highway”. Looking logically moving north from Hwy 55 along 116, we have Commercial (McDonalds), Industrial, and then the Office Condos. A nice transition. Across 116 we have the Golf Course and then the Townhouses. To the North and West we have Single Family. A higher density on Parcel 15 and 19 is warranted. But I believe that the best usage to meet that requirement would be Multi‐family Townhouses. This would complete the Transition moving north and fit in better with the surroundings and the Units would have the beauty of the Wetlands and Trees out the back, similar to the Townhouses across 116 facing the Golf Course. “Commercial – Highway,” would not be the correct usage this far north of Hwy 55. I think that is the biggest concern in the surrounding neighborhoods. Looking at the current Zoning for “Commercial – Highway”, it all borders Hwy 55 except for one parcel that is along 101, but is already built as a commercial strip center. Parcels 15 and 19 are surrounded by Residential on 3 sides, and small office Condos to the south towards Hwy 55. To make parcel 15 and 19 “Commercial – Highway” doesn’t fit in to the Medina Community, nor is there any precedent for it. That is why everyone is upset. This needs to be discussed and re‐analyzed to correct a previous error. Thank you. Tom Swanson 950 Foxberry Circle Medina Minnesota 55340 Tom Swanson SWANSONFLO 151 Cheshire Lane No. Suite 700 Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Office:763‐383‐4700 Cell:612‐701‐8077 E‐mail: tom.swanson@swansonflo.com http://www.swansonflo.com 1 Dusty Finke From:Craig Theis <craig.theis@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, December 06, 2018 8:27 PM To:Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; lorie.couusineau@medinamn.gov; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke Subject:Commercial Rezoning 15 & 10 Good evening Mayor and Council Members, My name is Craig Theis and I live at 900 Fox Path Court, Medina, MN 55340. Like many of my neighbors I oppose the rezoning of lots 15 & 19 from residential to commercial. Commercial zoning adjacent to an established residential neighborhood is not appropriate for the community, it is not fair to residents who have made a home and investment in the adjacent properties and it is not contributing to the quality of life we all strive for as Medina residents; residents who live in Medina for exactly that - the quality of life. Commercial use of these parcels will make an already busy and dangerous intersection for pedestrians even worse. Our kids already have to use extreme caution when using the trails along 116. I can't imagine it will slow down the traffic that use Meander Rd in excess of posted speed limits. Commercial activity would almost have to bring more traffic than a single family home. More traffic to add more noise to the already deafening noise levels produced by traffic on 116. It is likely to further have a negative impact on Medina residents who are working hard to maintain home values and who are increasingly struggling with the ability to sell homes in a timely fashion and at competitive prices due to the growing traffic on 116, 55 along with train sirens. There must be some intent for these parcels that would cause the consideration for the rezoning. That should be made known. Further, it would appear as though much of the site is wetland or other. What meaningful commercial enterprise would select that site and what value would that provide the citizens of Medina. Highway 55 is a 1/4 mile from there and there is a vacant DQ, the business park appears to have vacancy and undeveloped lots, more commercial would mean what?? The consideration of zoning that parcel to commercial from residential must be providing some great benefit to the City and its citizens to endure this much push back from you residents. I would appreciate more information and further would ask that you vote no to honoring the request. This is a great City with happy residents. These two parcels should not change from residential zoning. Sincerely, Craig Theis CDT 1 Dusty Finke From:Kristin Toste <ktoste@mchsi.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 12:02 PM To:Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Lorie Cousineau; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke Subject:I oppose the commercial rezoning and commercial expansion near CR116 & Meander Rd Hello Mayor, and Council and Planning Members, I OPPOSE the proposed commercial rezoning and proposed commercial expansion near the parcels of CR116 and Meander Road, lots 15 & 19. CR116 is a highly overused county road now, and additional commercial traffic would push it's capacity to an impossible level on this road, and further exacerbate safety concerns. In addition, commercial traffic is unwanted so near our neighborhood communities. I would ask you instead, to look for alternative commercial locations, just not on CR116, such as south of Hwy 55 or closer to Hwy 55 further west in Medina. My name is Kristin Toste, and I live at 4650 Foxberry Drive, Medina, MN 55340. I have lived in Foxberry Farms for 20 years, my husband and I built here, and I have two children at home attending high school, and also two grown kids now living on their own. I am a widow. I was instrumental in initiating a discussion and meeting with Hennepin County, the Mayor of Medina, and neighbors, to present safety concerns and share car crash examples, and to petition for a stop light at the intersection of CR116 and Hackamore. This was at the time (about 2010) when my my older son, Stefan Boemer, had been recently hit in his vehicle, while trying to turn left into our neighborhood at the intersection of CR116 and Hackamore, by a high speed driver heading south on CR116. Thank God he was OK. Others hit at that same intersection at speeds of over 55 mph, were not OK. I am well aware of how traffic has dramatically increased on CR116, and I still consider this road a big safety concern, especially for pedestrian traffic. Since Medina cannot control this county road, nor its speed limits, I recommend to NOT add to the current high traffic use and safety issues of this road, and to please look at alternative locations for commercial development. In addition, who on your committee would want commercial development and traffic so near their home? I think no one would. I hope that you will consider my concerns and request, and weigh alternative solutions. Thank you, Kristin Toste cell: 763-478-7026 4650 Foxberry Drive Medina, MN 55340 1 Dusty Finke From:Jim Truwe <jtredsoxs@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, December 07, 2018 11:32 AM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Rezoning lots 15@19 foxberry farms Good morning Dusty , I left you a voicemail as well . I don't agree that lots 15@19 to be rezoned to commercial. I live in foxberry farms and I don't want commercial property next to my home. Please keep all commercial property on hwy 55 where it belongs. If you have any questions please call me at (612)760‐0455 . Thanks Jim Truwe homeowner in Foxberry farms. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 Dusty Finke From:Donald Verbick <verbickd@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 12:28 PM To:Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Lorie Cousineau; John Anderson; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke Subject:Potential Commercial Rezoning of Land Adjacent to Foxberry Farms Subdivision Dear Medina City Council, Mayor, and Planning Director: My name is Don Verbick and I live at 855 Foxberry Farms Road, Medina, MN 55340. I oppose the rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 to Commercial. Commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods isn’t appropriate for our community. Please keep Commercial Expansion on HWY 55. I would like to keep Medina and especially the Foxberry Farms neighborhood a beautiful residential community with reasonable commercial expansion in the right places, such as the HWY 55 commercial corridor. Thank you. Sincerely, Donald L. Verbick 1 Dusty Finke From:Tammylynne Jonas <tammylynne.jonas@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 9:42 PM To:Dusty Finke; Kathleen Martin Cc:Benjamin Jonas Subject:Commercial zoning We are residents of Foxberry farms in Medina and we absolutely oppose the proposed rezoning for a commercial highway. Please contact us if you have any questions. We moved here in 2017 and we were attracted to this area due to the wildlife and the consistent property values. We feel that they notion of a commercial highway very close to us would reduce property values and would negatively impact our experience as residents. Tammylynne And Ben Jonas 4085 Shorewood Trail Medina MN 55340 1 Dusty Finke From:Wajih Mashadi <wmashadi@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 11:14 AM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 Dusty, Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I believe myself and many other residents off 116 that are neighboring the two lots proposed to be rezoned from a 'mixed' use to 'commercial' use, are not as concerned about the historical planning initiated back from year 2000, but what kind of businesses can be accommodated in a commercial lot. Looking at the sizes of both the lots, and the wetland surrounding and within the boundaries, the usable area is less than 2 acres. Mixed-use development is a type of urban development that blends residential, commercial, cultural, institutional, or entertainment uses, where those functions are physically and functionally integrated, and that provides pedestrian connections. Commercial Zoning. Local governments use zoning to protect the health and safety of a community and to regulate growth. Commercial zoning laws control the type of activities a business may conduct in a particular area and the category of business that can occupy the zoned area. Medina is known to have properties with open lots and ample areas around the curbs and roads. Looking at both the categories, the zoning do not seem much different, with the fact that Mixed use seemed more controlled by the city rules. My intended attendance for today meeting is targeted more towards what the city plans to put in these two lots. Unless a promising investment is pushing the zoning to be changed due to falling in a particular weird category, then why can the current wide category not fall in a blended residential, commercial, cultural, institutional, or entertainment functions providing pedestrian connections. I hope I can get answers to the questions and we can all leave the meeting today content on what is next expected on County Road 116. Thank you. Wajih Mashadi From: Dusty Finke <dusty.finke@medinamn.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 8:35 AM To: Wajih Mashadi Subject: RE: Rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 Hi Wajih, 2 Thank you for your email. I have also forwarded your email to the Planning Commission and will provide to them at the hearing. It appears that Mayor Martin has responded with some information, and I also have attached the staff report which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the tonight’s hearing. As she noted, there is no development or construction proposed at this time and the proposed zoning district is similar to how the property has been zoned for the past decade. The property is guided or commercial development in the City’s comprehensive plan, and the City needs to have zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by May. There is discussion in the staff report related to options. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, thanks! Dusty Finke, AICP City of Medina 763‐473‐8846 From: Wajih Mashadi <wmashadi@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 9:51 AM To: Kathleen Martin <kathleen.martin@medinamn.gov> Cc: Dusty Finke <dusty.finke@medinamn.gov>; Jeff Pederson <jeff.pederson@medinamn.gov>; Lorie Cousineau <lorie.cousineau@medinamn.gov>; John Anderson <john.anderson@medinamn.gov>; Dino Deslauriers <dino.deslauriers@medinamn.gov> Subject: Rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 My name is Wajih Mashadi and I live at 4265 Foxberry Court, Medina MN 55340-9390. I oppose the rezoning of Lots 15 & 19 to Commercial. Commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods is not appropriate for our community. Please keep Commercial Expansion on HWY 55. I will be attend the Upcoming Public Hearing on this Matter on Tuesday, December 11th, at 7:00p at the Council Chambers of City Hall (2052 County Road 24). Thank you. Wajih Mashadi 4265 Foxberry Court Medina MN 55340-9390 1 Dusty Finke From:Bruce Whitehead <bwhitehead535@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 8:53 AM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Proposed Rezoning Hi Dusty, I heard of the potential rezoning of residential property to commercial property (lots 15 & 19 in the Foxberry Farms neighborhood) and I oppose such an effort. There are plenty of other sites (along Hwy 55) that could be used for commercial expansion. Regards, Bruce Whitehead 4306 Fairway Drive, Medina HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 29 26 30 33 28 5 2022 11 1 17 4 15 3 18 31 14 2 13 21 12 23 16 27 35 34 7 6 24 9 19 25 32 810 Katrina Independence Medina Spurzem Peter School Lake Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Mooney Winterhalter Krieg Miller Thies Ardmore Hidden Lake HAMEL P I O N E E R H O M E S T E A D T O M A H A W K CHIPPEWA WILLOW COUNTY ROAD 19 COUNTY ROAD 116 M E DIN A MOHAWK NAVAJO HIGHWAY 55 TOWNLINE TAMARACK CHESTNUT A R R O W H E A D CHEYENNE CLYDESDALE H O L Y N A M E H O L L Y B U S H MORNINGSIDE COUNTY ROAD 19 HIGHWAY 55HAMEL M E D I N A WIL LO W P I O N E E R HAMEL HIGHWAY 55 Proposed Rezonings2040 Comp Plan Map Date: December 27, 2018 Legend Business (B) Business Park (BP) Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) Mid-Density Residential (R3) Residential-Multiple Family (R4) Rural Business Holding (RBH) Rural Residential (RR) Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Public/Semi-Public (PS) Katrina Independence Medina Spurzem Peter School Lake Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Mooney Winterhalter Krieg Miller Thies Ardmore Hidden Lake HAMEL PIO N EE R H O M E S T E A D TO M AH A W K CHIPPEWA PARKVIEW WILLOW COUNTY ROAD 19 COUNTY ROAD 116 MEDINA MOHAWK NAVAJO HIGHWAY 55 TOWNLINE TAMARACK CHESTNUT COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEAD HUNTER CHEYENNE COUNTY ROAD 101 BR O C KTO N COUNTY ROAD 11 CLYDESDALE H O L Y N A M E HACKAMORE H O L L Y B U S H MORNINGSIDE H A M E L COUNTY ROAD 19 WIL LO W HIGHWAY 55 P I O N E E R COUNTY ROAD 24 CHIPPEWA A R R O W H E A D COUNTY ROAD 19 W I L L O W HIGHWAY 55 M E D I N A M E D I N A HAMEL WILLOW TAMARACK HUNTER Zoning Map(Residential) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles Please contact the Planning Department (763-473-4643) for more information regarding property within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) Map Updated: November 2, 2017Current to Ordinance #608 Legend Non-Residential (see reverse) Agricultural Preserve (AG) Rural Residential (RR) Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Rural Residential 2 (RR-2) Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Suburban Residential (SR) Urban Residential (UR) Single Family Residential (R1) R1 - rezoning pending Single and Two-Family Residential (R2) R2- rezoning pending Residential-Mid Density (R3) Multiple Family Residential (MR) Mixed Use (MU) Uptown Hamel 1 (UH-1) Uptown Hamel 2 (UH-2) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Katrina Independence Medina Spurzem Peter School Lake Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Mooney Winterhalter Krieg Miller Thies Ardmore Hidden Lake HAMEL PIO N EE R H O M E S T E A D TO M AH A W K CHIPPEWA PARKVIEW WILLOW COUNTY ROAD 19 COUNTY ROAD 101 COUNTY ROAD 116 MEDINA MOHAWK NAVAJO HIGHWAY 55 TOWNLINE TAMARACK CHESTNUT COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEAD HUNTER CHEYENNE BR O C KTO N COUNTY ROAD 11 CLYDESDALE H O L Y N A M E HACKAMORE H O L L Y B U S H EVERGREEN MORNINGSIDE H A M E L C LY D E S D A L E COUNTY ROAD 19 WIL LO W HIGHWAY 55 P I O N E E R COUNTY ROAD 24 CHIPPEWA A R R O W H E A D COUNTY ROAD 19 W I L L O W HIGHWAY 55 M E D I N A M E D I N A HAMEL WILLOW TAMARACK HUNTER Zoning Map 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles Please contact the Planning Department (763-473-4643) for more information regarding property within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) Map Updated: November 2, 2017Current to Ordinance #608 (Non-Residential) PUD (Non-Res) Legend Residential - see reverse Agricultural Preserve (AG) Rural Residential-2 (RR-2) Mixed Use (MU) Uptown Hamel-1 (UH-1) Uptown Hamel-2 (UH-2) Public/Semi-Public (PS) Rural Public/Semi-Public (RPS) Business Park (BP) Business (B) Industrial Park (IP) Commercial-Highway (CH) Commercial Highway-Railroad (CH-RR) Commerial-General (CG) Rural Business Holding (RBH) Rural Commercial Holding (RCH) Sanitary Landfill (SL) HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-3Future Land Use Plan 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreational Park, Recreational, and Open Space Closed Sanitary Landfill MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Debra Peterson, Associate Planner through Planning Director Dusty Finke DATE: February 27, 2019 MEETING: March 5, 2019 Planning Commission SUBJ: Theisen – 3325 County Road 24 - Conditional Use Permit for construction of Accessory Structures exceeding 5,000 square feet. Application Deadline Complete Application Received: December 7, 2018 120 - Day Review Deadline: April 5, 2019 Overview of Request Scott and Chantelle Theisen request a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a horse barn with an indoor riding arena, future building, and two lean-tos on their property at 3325 County Road 24. Section 825.19 states that on residential properties more than 5 acres in area, a conditional use permit is required for more than two accessory buildings or for accessory buildings which exceed an aggregate of 5,000 square feet in size. The purpose of a CUP is to allow the City Council to impose conditions on the use which it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The subject property is currently vacant and does not have an existing conditional use permit. The subject property is zoned RR, Rural Residential with properties to the north, southeast, east and west also zoned RR. The Alpine Farms commercial horse facility is located to the southwest and is zoned RR-2, Rural Residential 2. The applicants have stated that they will construct both the horse barn/indoor riding arena and their home all at the same time, but the home is not subject to the CUP process. The applicants have submitted a narrative and it is attached for your review. Site Description/Setbacks/Hardcover The subject property is 19.05 acres (829,708 sq. ft.) and currently shares access off County Road 24 with the neighboring property to the west. Their existing driveway is gravel and they propose to extend it further to the south and east where the home and accessory buildings are proposed. Pasture areas are proposed along the eastern boundary of the property leading up to the barn/indoor arena. The property will also have a 100’ x 200’ outdoor riding arena between the barn and home. The “future” building is between the barn and outdoor riding arena. The applicants propose a 16,188 square foot barn with an indoor riding arena and two 288 square foot lean-tos (loafing sheds) for their pasture areas. The storage building noted on the site plan as “future” is 2,560 square feet. The barn/indoor riding arena and “future building” meet the 150’ setback requirement from all property lines, but the proposed lean-tos do not, based on the current layout. Staff recommends a condition requiring the lean-tos to be located to meet the 150’ setback requirement. Agenda Item # 8D 2 The proposed lean-tos are 12’ x 24’ (288 sf) each and do not count towards the 5,000 square foot maximum aggregate total of building square footage for accessory buildings. They do not count towards the aggregate total due to their size being under 300 square feet (exemption) however, the number of buildings is counted as part of the CUP. Below is a location map of the site. 3 SITE SUMMARY Square footage being requested Barn/Indoor Riding Arena 16,188 SF Future Building 2,560 SF Total Building Area: 18,748 SF Building Details The proposed exterior building material for the horse barn/riding arena is metal. The color of the roof is proposed to be an Ash Gray and the side walls Gallery Blue. The paint is Sherwin- Williams Weather XL and has a warranty of 45 years. The windows and doors are proposed to be white. The front entrance of the barn protrudes outward with an overhang. Accent stone wainscot is proposed at the entrance and wraps around the building to the west. Two 48” cupolas and one 36” cupola is proposed to break up the appearance of the large wall span of the building. Building material samples will be brought to the meeting. The zoning code requires the building have two exterior colors (Section 826.98. Subd.2. (m). Staff is acceptant of the colors proposed, and metal exterior. Building Height The RR zoning district restricts building height to a maximum of 30’ measured from the average grade to mid roof. The barn side walls are proposed to be 12’-6” and the indoor riding arena is proposed to have 16’-8” side walls. The overall height of the building is 28’-8” when measured from grade to the peak of the roof. The mean height is 22’-6”. Manure Management The applicants propose a concrete manure bunker at the southeast corner of the barn/indoor riding arena. The manure is proposed to be hauled off-site a minimum of once every three months. Required Setbacks Proposed Setbacks Hardcover Maximum Proposed Hardcover Building Size Barn 150’ 150’ minimum 16,188 sf Future building 150’ 260’ minimum 2,560 sf Lean-to A 150’ 55’ to be relocated to 150’ 288 sf Lean-to B 150’ 80’ to be relocated to 150’ 288 sf Site Layout 40% 10.6% 4 Septic The primary and alternate septic system will be located on the far south side of the property. The septic system in the barn will be connected from the house. The wash stall will have its own separate 2,000 gallon holding tank which is proposed to be just south of the barn and accessible by their driveway. Minnehaha Creek Watershed The Watershed does not have any concerns with the CUP request at this time, however the applicants will be required to obtain required permits from the Watershed prior to building permits being issued. Stormwater The hardcover from the proposed construction of the house, driveways, barn, paddocks, lean-tos, and future building triggers the City stormwater management ordinance requirements and Minnehaha Watershed requirements. Engineering The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed CUP and has a number of additional grading and stormwater management items yet to complete prior to the issuance of a building permit. The items have been placed as conditions of approval. Grazable Acres/Number of Horses The applicants intend to have no more than eight horses at any one time, but their property allows for up to 14 horses without any special approvals. The applicants are satisfied with having a maximum of 14 horses in case they decide to expand their number of horses in the future. Conditional Use Permit Standards for Rural Residential and Residential Districts In addition to the general standards specified in Section 825.39 of the ordinance, no conditional use permit shall be granted unless the city council determines that all of the specific standards contained in the subdivision below will be met under Section 826.98. Subd. 2 (m): (m) Accessory building standards for residential properties greater than five acres in area: (i) The accessory building’s design shall include architectural interest through the appropriate use of the following elements: cupolas, dormers, windows, porches, overhangs, varied building foundation, or other design treatments which the city council determines create a quality architectural design that enhances the appearance of the accessory building and complements the principal dwelling and the rural residential character or residential neighborhood in which the building is to be constructed. The applicants are proposing two exterior colors of metal, one stone wainscot color, windows, cupolas, overhangs, and more than one roofline. The horse barn/indoor riding arena is set back over 900 feet from County Road 24 and will have some tree plantings along the driveway. 5 (ii) At least two colors or textures shall be used in the accessory building’s exterior design, including contrasting trim or fascia. The applicants propose to use three colors. The side walls will be gallery blue in color, the roof ash gray, and the windows, doors white in color. (iii) Any metal exterior materials on the accessory building shall be warranted to resist fading for a period of at least 15 years; and The proposed metal exterior has a paint warranty of 45 years. (iv) The accessory building shall have an infiltration basin, rain garden, rain barrel or other similar best management practice used to capture storm water runoff from the building and to improve water quality. Said best management practice must be reviewed and approved by the city council. A rain garden is being proposed just northwest of the barn/indoor riding arena. Ordinance Compliance Section 825.39 states that when considering a CUP, the City shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of occupants or surrounding lands. Among other things, the City shall consider the following: 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. The construction of the proposed buildings and use on the large acreage parcel is consistent with the RR, Rural Residential zoning district and will not diminish or impair neighboring properties. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. Staff does not believe the increased building square footage on the large 19+ acre lot would impede normal and orderly development. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The subject property will be on private septic and private well, so it will not have an impact to city or private utilities. The applicants have proposed to install a rain garden and erosion control where necessary prior to building permit issuance. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. Staff believes the proposed internal drives and access to the new buildings are sufficient for parking and on-site circulation. 6 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. Staff does not believe odors, fumes, dust, noise or vibration will be increased by the development of the property. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Staff believes the proposed accessory buildings are reasonably related to the existing property size and needs for the parcel size. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Staff believes the proposed barn/indoor riding arena is an acceptable use of the property and zoning district. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. Staff does not believe constructing a barn/indoor riding arena and a secondary building in the future on the property would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan policies. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Staff does not believe the proposed buildings would cause a traffic hazard or congestion above what is already present. The traffic from the property should not be any different than any other Rural Residential property in Medina. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Staff does not believe the proposed buildings will significantly increase noise or glare to nearby properties. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicants plan to start construction of the barn/indoor arena and house at the same time this spring. The completion of the project is expected before January 1, 2020. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. The applicant has signed the land use application as the property owner and is listed as the owner with Hennepin County. City Discretion The City has relatively limited discretion to deny a Conditional Use Permit. If the application meets City ordinances, the CUP should be approved. However, the City has discretion to impose conditions on the approval that protect the best interests of the surrounding community and the city as a whole. Section 825.41 states that these conditions could include, but are not limited to:  Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions.  Limiting the height, size or location of buildings.  Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points.  Increasing the street width.  Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces. 7  Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs.  Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or nearby property.  Designating sites for open space. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the CUP at the February 12 meeting. Draft minutes from the meeting are attached for reference. Paul Beck, attorney representing the Wakefield Family Partnership, 3235 County Road 24 (the vacant property to the east of the subject property) spoke at the PC public hearing and suggested the Commission consider a more neutral color for the barn that would blend with the surroundings and add landscaping to break up the mass of the structure. He also noted concern with lighting coming from the eastern portion of the riding arena. Following the hearing, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicants shall warrant that the barn/indoor riding arena is for private use only, and that no commercial and/or fee-based activities shall occur. 2) The lean-tos shall be located to meet the 150’ setback requirement. 3) The applicants shall satisfy all outstanding grading and stormwater items as noted in WSB memo dated 2/6/19. 4) The applicants shall construct stormwater improvements meeting the requirements of the City’s Stormwater Management requirements. 5) The applicants shall abide by all permitting requirements of the City and other agencies such as Minnehaha Creek prior to the start of construction. 6) The barn/indoor riding arena shall not be occupied prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for the principal structure. 7) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs associated with the review of the Conditional Use Permit application. Potential Action Following review, if the City Council finds the CUP criteria and standards have been satisfied, the Council can take the following action: Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the CUP, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Attachments 1. Draft February 12, 2019 PC minutes 2. List of Documents 3. Applicant narrative 4. Ram Builders narrative 5. WSB Engineering memo dated February 6, 2019 6. Plans (Site Plan, Grading, Landscaping, Floor Plan, Elevations) Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 2/12/19 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Scott and Chantelle Theisen – 3325 County Road 24 – Conditional Use Permit for Construction of Four Accessory Structures with an Aggregate Footprint in Excess of 5,000 Square Feet Finke presented a request for accessory structures at 3325 County Road 24. He reviewed the current allocations for accessory structures on this type of property. He noted that currently the property is vacant, and the home is proposed to be constructed at the same time as the barn and riding structures, with plans for two additional lean-to buildings. He reviewed the adjacent zoning and uses, noting that this site is 19 acres in size with a wetland on the northern portion of the site. He stated that the property is proposed to be accessed with a shared driveway with the property to the west, which was a condition of the property split. He stated that for a Conditional Use Permit there are specific standards that would need to be met including architectural measures and stormwater management measures. He reviewed the details on how the site would meet the stormwater management requirements and provided details on the architectural details of the site. He stated that the site has 15 grazable acres which would allow 14 animal units, while the applicant proposes having eight horses. He stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP subject to the conditions included in the staff report. Galzki asked what the lean-to buildings would be used for. Finke replied that those would be loafing sheds for animals. Piper referenced a property at CR 6 and Game Farm Road, noting that would be a very similar property. She stated that this would be a great addition to the community and is impressed with the planning for this beautiful site. Nielsen asked if the manure removal plan of every three months would be adequate to ensure that neighbors are not bothered by that. Galzki stated that one of the conditions addresses that item and staff did not believe that would be an issue because of the number of animals and location of manure storage. Reid opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Paul Beck, attorney representing the Wakefield Family Partnership, owner of vacant property to the east (3235 County Road 24), stated that the Partnership recognizes that the proposed use is allowed through a Conditional Use Permit and that the City’s discretion is limited. However, he suggested that the Commission consider certain conditions to limit the impact of the use upon property to the east. The potential home location on the Wakefield land is located to the northeast of the barn and sits at a higher elevation and so will be looking down on the large, grey-white roof. They suggest that the applicant consider a more neutral color which fits into the surroundings. Beck also suggested landscaping to break up the mass of the structure and noted that they were concerned with lighting coming out the windows along the eastern facade. Williams asked if Beck’s property has the same zoning as the subject property. Finke noted that both were the same. Nielsen noted Beck would only have a view of the northeast corner of the building. Piper stated that landscaping would be one option suggested by Beck while changing the colors would be another option. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 2/12/19 Meeting Minutes 2 Galzki asked if the paint is reflective. Reid suggested that the applicant be allowed to respond. Scott Theisen, stated that they had purchased the property from the Wakefield family and were now surprised that they are raising concerns after the closing. Amic asked the thoughts of the applicant on adding trees. Theisen replied that he would prefer not to add trees or changing the colors. Nielsen stated that if Beck would like additional screening, the appropriate location would be on his property as it has a higher elevation. Reid closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. Piper stated that she could see requiring trees, as that could solve the problem. She stated that as for the color of the roof perhaps there is a reason related to heat absorption. Rollie Radtke, RAM Builders stated that all of the colors are meant to be energy efficient and there really is not much of a difference. He noted that the colored steel is not reflective like old galvanized steel. Reid stated that the screening and landscaping would be addressed when the next house is built rather than requiring that with this request. Motion by Galzki, seconded by Piper, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Motion carries unanimously. Project: LR-18-240 – Theisen Accessory Structure CUP The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 4 Application Y Deposit 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 1 Deposit Y $1000 Plan Set 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 9 Plans-12-7-2018 Y Landscaping Plan 1/10/2019 1/10/2019 3 Landscaping Y Plan Sheets – Updated 1/10/2019 1/10/2019 3 Update Plans – 1-10-2019 Y Updated elevation, grading plan Narrative 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 1 Narrative Y Response to comments 1/10/2019 1/10/2019 1 Response Y Paint Specifications 1/10/2019 NA 2 PaintSpecs Y Ownership Information 12/7/2018 11/1/2018 2 Deed Y Manure Hauling Agreement 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 1 ManurePlan Y Lighting Specifications 12/7/2018 NA 4 Lighting Y Building Perspective 12/7/2018 NA 1 Perspective Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 12/21/2018 2 Engineer-12-21-2018 Engineering Comments 2/6/2019 2 Engineering-2-6-2019 Minnehaha Creek Comments 12/19/2018 1 Minnehaha-12-19-2019 Minnehaha Creek Comments 1/16/2019 1 Minnehaha-1-16-2019 Building Official Comments 12/21/2018 1 Building Legal Comments 12/23/2018 1 Legal Hennepin County Comments 12/27/2018 8 County Prelim Comments and 120-day letter 12/21/2018 3 PrelimComments-12-21-2018 Legal Notice 2/1/2019 3 Notice 5 pages w/ affidavit and address list Planning Commission Report 2/6/2019 7 City Council Report 2/27/19 7 Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Planning Commission Minutes 2/12/2019 Narrative of Property Use at 3325 County Road 24, Medina December 7, 2018 To Whom It May Concern: We have been Medina residents for the past 11 years. We have purchased the 19 acres at 3325 County Road 24 with the intention of building a new home and horse barn/indoor riding arena. It is intended for personal use and includes 8 horse stalls. The number of horses on the property will not exceed 14 horses at any given time. We have owned horses for many years and are familiar with routine care. Pastures will be used on a rotational basis with cut hay as supplemental feed to avoid overgrazing. All manure will be stored in the 16’ x 24’ concrete storage bin on the back of the property and removal of manure will be contracted with RAM Excavating to haul and dispose of manure properly. ‐ Scott & Chantelle Theisen Page 1 of 1 P.O. Box 660 • Winsted, MN 55395 Office: (320) 485- 2844 • Fax: (320-485-3625) January 10, 2019 Notes for Conditional Use Permit 3325 County Road 24 Medina, MN Septic System Information  The septic system in the barn will be connected from the house. There will be a separate 2,000 gallon holding tank for the wash stall. Manure Hauling Contract  In clarification to the manure hauling contract between the Owner and RAM (Contractor) dated December 7, 2018, the manure will be hauled off site at a minimum of once every 3 months. https://medinamn.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/Planning/Active Land Use Applications and Projects/18-240 Theisen CUP/Working File/WSB attachment.PC Theisen CUP.docx 70 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | SU I T E 3 0 0 | MI N N E A P O L I S , M N | 55 4 1 6 | 76 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | WS B E N G . C O M February 6, 2019 Mr. Dusty Finke Director of Planning City of Medina 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Re: Theisen CUP Application – WSB Engineering Site Plan Review City Project No. LR-19-240 WSB Project No. 13342-000 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed the Theisen CUP application and plans dated January 10, 2019. The applicant proposes to construct a single-family home, a barn, and fenced horse riding areas. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Grading Plan: 1. Show erosion/sediment control BMP’s on the grading or other plan. Additional BMP’s will be required (bio-roll within swales, erosion control blanket on other steeper slopes, etc.) along with a SWPPP to meet NPDES permitting requirements (over one acre of disturbance and over one acre of impervious surface increase). 2. Include the City’s standard details on the plan where applicable. Details will be needed for the erosion/sediment control items and the permanent stormwater treatment improvements. 3. Provide more information of the proposed culvert/pipes on the project, include notes for size, type, and invert elevation of the pipes. 4. One of the grading notes references retaining wall design, but not retaining walls are shown on the plan. Either correct the note or show the retaining walls on the plan. Stormwater Management 5. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and permitting requirements. Please provide permitting documents to the City if applicable. 6. The level of disturbance is over one acre. Provide a NPDES permit and SWPPP meeting the MPCA requirements to be implemented during construction and interim and/or permanent turf establishment information. 7. A Stormwater Management Plan is required to be submitted that meets the City’s Design Guidelines. The Plan must include a BMP to meet volume control of 1.1 inches from new impervious surfaces. See approved volume control credit BMPs in the City’s design manual. Water quality is considered met if volume control is met. Theisen CUP Application – WSB Engineering Review February 6, 2019 Page 2 https://medinamn.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/Planning/Active Land Use Applications and Projects/18-240 Theisen CUP/Working File/WSB attachment.PC Theisen CUP.docx 8. Proposed discharge rates must be less than existing for the Atlas 14, 1-year, 10-year, and 100-year 24-hour rainfall events. MSE 3 rainfall distribution shall be used, please provide modelling information. 9. Soil borings shall be submitted and must be located within the proposed BMP location. A note was provided on the plan, but no report was provided. 10. Confirm freeboard from new structures; 2 feet of vertical separation from any emergency overflow to the lowest opening. Show all EOFs and HWLs on the plans. The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The owner, developer, and engineer are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer 12 7 0 1 W h i t e w a t e r D r i v e , S u i t e # 3 0 0 Mi n n e t o n k a , M N 5 5 3 4 3 PH O N E 9 5 2 - 9 3 7 - 5 1 5 0 FA X 9 5 2 - 9 3 7 - 5 8 2 2 1- 8 8 8 - 9 3 7 - 5 1 5 0 x x x x x 12 7 0 1 W h i t e w a t e r D r i v e , S u i t e # 3 0 0 Mi n n e t o n k a , M N 5 5 3 4 3 PH O N E 9 5 2 - 9 3 7 - 5 1 5 0 FA X 9 5 2 - 9 3 7 - 5 8 2 2 1- 8 8 8 - 9 3 7 - 5 1 5 0 7XOLHV //&6WDUOLJKW'ULYH:DFRQLD013URMHFW7+(,6(1(48675,$1 0(',1$01 DATE: DRAWN BY: SHEETOF 12/7/2018 PROJECT NAME: BUILDING DESCRIPTION: ,QGXVWULDO'ULYH 32%R[ :LQVWHG0LQQHVRWD JEREMY B. DESIGN NUMBER: P18262 22 PROJECT NUMBER: (18-___) 68'-0" X 174'-0" X 16'-0" ARENA W/ 64'-0" X 24'-0" X 16'-0" HAY STORAGE W/ 38'-0" X 72'-0" X 12'-0" STALL BARN © A ll d rawings and content c opyr ig ht RA M B u il d i ngs Inc. Call RAM Build ings Inc. to obtain c opi es of this plan. Unautho rized reprod uc ti on o f the s e p lan s i s a v i ol a ti on o f fede ral l aw. THEISEN HORSE BARN OPTION #1 $0 %XLOGLQJV,QF5 )D[ ZZZUDPEXLOGLQJVFRP &RQWUDFWRU/LFHQVH1XPEHU%& 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 14 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 20' PURLINS 10' PUR. 20' PURLINS 20' PURLINS 18' PURLINS 72'-0" 10 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 7 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 7 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 6'-0" 12'-0" 6'-0" 24'-0" 6' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6'- 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 2 ' 1 0 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 2 ' 1 4 ' - 0 " 2 ' 6 ' - 0 " 10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 6' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' -0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 18 ' P U R L I N S 2 0 ' P U R L I N S 2 0 ' P U R L I N S 2 0 ' P U R L I N S 2 0 ' P U R L I N S 1 0 ' P U R . 2 0 ' P U R L I N S 2 0 ' P U R L I N S 2 0 ' P U R L I N S 2 0 ' P U R L I N S 1 8 ' P U R L I N S 10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 68'-0" 17 4 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 0 " 3 8 ' - 0 " 1 3 ' - 0 " 64 ' - 0 " 6'-0" 12'-0" 6'-0" 24'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 24 " S I D E & E N D W A L L OV E R H A N G S 3 P L Y 2 X 6 - _ _ ' SI D E W A L L C O L U M N S CONTINUOUS PROFILEVENT A B C 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' SI D E W A L L C O L U M N S 3 PLY 2X6-__' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' S2 E1 E2 S1 FLOOR PLAN CL 2X 6 X - B R A C I N G LI N E D U P W / B O T T O M CH O R D B R A C I N G (_ _ P L Y _ _ " L V L H E A D E R ) 4' 0 " X 6 ' 8 " S O L I D W A L K D O O R R. O . = 5 1 5 / 8 " X 8 1 1 / 8 " KN O B / K N O B K E Y E D L A T C H 3' 0 " X 6 ' 8 " 9 - L I T E W A L K D O O R R. O . = 4 0 5 / 1 6 " X 8 1 1 / 8 " KN O B / K N O B K E Y E D L A T C H 40 3 0 V I N Y L S L I D I N G W I N D O W R. O . = 4 8 " X 3 6 " 40 2 0 V I N Y L F I X E D W I N D O W R. O . = 4 8 " X 3 6 " 50 6 0 V I N Y L S L I D I N G W I N D O W R. O . = 6 0 " X 7 2 " (T O P O F W I N D O W S A T 1 4 ' - 0 " ) 40 4 0 V I N Y L S L I D I N G W I N D O W R. O . = 4 8 " X 4 8 " NO T E : T O P O F W I N D O W S T O MA T C H T O P O F W A L K D O O R S UN L E S S O T H E R W I S E N O T E D 14 ' X 1 4 ' OV E R H E A D D O O R CONTINUOUS PROFILEVENT CO N T I N U O U S P R O F I L E V E N T 3 PLY 2X6-__' 3 PLY 2X6-__' 3 PLY 2X6-__' 3 PLY 2X6-__' 3 PLY 2X6-__' (_ _ P L Y _ _ " L V L H E A D E R ) 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' 3 P L Y 2 X 8 - _ _ ' CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CLCL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCL CLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCL CL CLCL CL CL CLCLCLCLCLCLCL CLCLCLCLCL 12' X 14' OVERHEAD DOOR 10 ' X 1 0 ' OV E R H E A D D O O R 10 ' X 1 0 ' OV E R H E A D D O O R 10 ' X 1 0 ' OV E R H E A D D O O R ED G E E D G E ED G E E D G E ED G E E D G E ST A L L #1 ST A L L #2 ST A L L #3 ST A L L #4 ST A L L #5 ST A L L #6 ST A L L #8 ST A L L #7 WA S H ST A L L ME C H . OF F I C E / T A C K R O O M D A A A B E EE EE E E E E E E E E E E D CCC CCCCCC 38' X 72' X 12' STALL BARN 64' X 24' X 16' STORAGE 68' X 174' X 16' INDOOR ARENA F 32 " S T O N E WA I N S C O T 32 " S T O N E WA I N S C O T CL 12' X 14' OVERHEAD DOOR A F OPTION A FE E D R O O M B F 1" = 2 0 ' SC A LE 68-0 X 174-0 X 16-0 ARENA, 64-0 X 24-0 X 16-0 HAY STORAGE, & 38-0 X 72-0 X 12-0 STALL BARN2OF © AL L D R A W I N G S A N D C O N T E N T C O P Y R I G H T R A M G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T I N G I N C . CA L L R A M G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T I N G I N C . T O O B T A I N C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . UN A U T H O R I Z E D R E P R O D U C T I O N O F T H E S E P L A N S I S A V I O L A T I O N O F F E D E RA L L A W . ARM General Contracting, Inc. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES R.S.DRAWN BY:THEISEN HORSE BARN 3325 COUNTY ROAD 24 592 Industrial Drive P.O. Box 660 Winsted, Minnesota 55395 320-485-2844 800-710-4726 Fax 320-485-3625 www.rambuildings.com Contractor License Number 20171976 PROJECT NAME: BUILDING DESCRIPTION: PROJECT NUMBER: DESIGN NUMBER: GC P18212 1 DATE: SHEET 1/9/2019 04 ' 8 ' 1 6 ' 04 ' 8 ' 1 6 ' 04 ' 8 ' 1 6 ' 0 4 ' 8 ' 1 6 ' 28'-8" (+/-) 16'-8" (+/-) 8'-6" 12'-6" (+/-) 12'-6" (+/-) 22'-6" (+/-) 28'-8" (+/-) SO U T H E L E V A T I O N NO R T H E L E V A T I O N EA S T E L E V A T I O N WE S T E L E V A T I O N HE I G H T A T RI D G E FI N I S H FL O O R TO P O F FA S C I A FI N I S H FL O O R TO P O F F A S C I A FI N I S H FL O O R ST O N E W A I N S C O T ST O N E W A I N S C O T WH I T E W I N D O W S , D O O R S , F A S C I A / S O F F I T AS H G R A Y 2 9 G A U G E ME T A L R O O F P A N E L S 36 " S Q U A R E C U P O L A 48 " S Q U A R E C U P O L A WH I T E W I N D O W S , D O O R S , F A S C I A / S O F F I T 36 " S Q U A R E C U P O L A 48 " S Q U A R E C U P O L A GA L L E R Y B L U E 2 9 G A U G E ME T A L W A L L P A N E L S GA L L E R Y B L U E 2 9 G A U G E ME T A L W A L L P A N E L S GA L L E R Y B L U E 2 9 G A U G E ME T A L W A L L P A N E L S (2 ) 4 8 " S Q U A R E C U P O L A S AS H G R A Y 2 9 G A U G E ME T A L R O O F P A N E L S AS H G R A Y 2 9 G A U G E ME T A L R O O F P A N E L S AS H G R A Y 2 9 G A U G E ME T A L R O O F P A N E L S (2 ) 4 8 " S Q U A R E C U P O L A S TO P O F FA S C I A FI N I S H FL O O R HE I G H T A T R I D G E HE I G H T A T R I D G E 1/ 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 : 2 1 P M Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 3 March 5, 2019 RR1 Side Setback City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: February 26, 2019 MEETING: March 5, 2019 City Council SUBJ: RR1 Side Setback Req. – Brian and Christine Raskob Review Deadline Complete Application Received: January 15, 2019 Review Deadline: April 15, 2019 Background Brian and Christine Raskob, 3240 Carriage Drive, have requested that the City consider reducing the minimum side yard setback for lots over 5 acres in size within the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) zoning district from 50 feet to 20 feet. Currently, lots over 5-acres in size require a minimum side yard setback of 50 feet, while lots under 5-acres require a smaller minimum side yard setback of 20 feet. The request is for all lots in the RR1 zoning district to require 20-feet. The RR1 zoning district applies only to the 39 properties within the Hunter Farms development, located west of Hunter Drive and north of Navajo Road and south of Hamel Road. The neighborhood includes 30 properties along Carriage Drive, Bridal Path Trail, Red Fox Drive, and six parcels on the south end of Elm Creek Drive, and three parcels on Hunter Drive. Of these 39 parcels, only three are over 5 acres in size. The map to the right shows the location of the RR1 parcels: The RR1 zoning district has the same requirements as the Rural Residential (RR) district, except the RR1 district requires smaller setbacks for horse barns. When the neighborhood was constructed, the minimum side yard setback was 20-feet. In 2006, the City increased the minimum lot width and side yard setback requirements for lots over 5 acres in the Agenda Item # 8E Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 3 March 5, 2019 RR1 Side Setback City Council Meeting RR district. Because the RR1 district directly references the RR requirements, the setback was changed in RR1 as well. Analysis Staff believes that the 2006 change was focused on the larger lots within the RR district. When originally adopted, the 50-foot setback applied to all RR (and RR1) lots. Soon after adoption, several property owners on smaller RR lots, created in the past when the RR district allowed lots under 5-acres, raised concerns related to the increased setbacks. These lots were originally built with a 20-foot setback so were often closer than 50 feet (or very near 50 feet) from the side lot lines. This prevented several owners from being able to add on to one side of their home or from being able to construct an accessory structure. To address these concerns, the City Council amended the ordinance to reinstitute the 20-foot setback for lots under 5-acres. As noted above, of the 39 lots within the Hunter Farms Addition, only three are over 5-acres in size, and none are over 6-acres. Two of these three lots, including the Raskobs’ property, are mostly wetlands with a reduced buildable area less than 2.5 acres. The applicant had originally considered requesting a variance, noting that only a few lots were over 5-acres in this neighborhood and that their lot contains just over 2-acres of buildable land. Staff identified the possibility of addressing this issue through an amendment to the RR1 zoning district rather than requiring the three owners to prove a practical difficulty in each case. Because the RR1 zoning district applies only to the Hunter Farms Addition, staff believes it is reasonable for all of the lots to share the same setback requirements, even if some of the lots are over 5-acres because they contain larger wetland areas. For these reasons, staff supports the proposed amendment to a minimum 20-foot side yard setback. When considering amendments to the zoning ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan should provide guidance. Staff has attached the description and objectives of the Rural Residential land use from the Plan. Beyond general language related to low intensity and preservation of open spaces, the language does not provide specific guidance related to setbacks, especially for smaller rural lots which were developed prior to the current 1 unit per 10 acre density standard. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment at the February 12 meeting. No one spoke at the hearing. An excerpt from the draft meeting minutes is attached for reference. Planning Commissioners generally believed it made sense for all of the parcels in the RR1 zoning district to have the same side yard setbacks, especially since the lots over 5 acres did not have substantially more buildable land because they extended further into the wetlands. The Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance. Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 3 March 5, 2019 RR1 Side Setback City Council Meeting Potential Action If the City Council concurs with the requested amendment, the following actions would be appropriate: 1. Move to adopt the ordinance amending the side setback requirement of the Rural Residential 1 zoning district. 2. Move to adopt the resolution authorizing publication by title and summary Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Resolution authorizing publication by title and summary 3. List of Documents 4. Excerpt from draft 2/12/2019 Planning Commission minutes 5. Rural Residential Comp Plan Information 6. Applicant Narrative Ordinance No. ### 1 v2 DATE 2/5/2019 CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 826.26 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows: RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONING DISTRICT (RR 1) Section 826.26. Rural Residential 1 (RR 1). Subd. 1. The purpose of the RR 1 district is to provide a district which is similar to the RR - Rural Residential district but which allows differences in development standards in recognition of the proximity of the district to areas which are densely developed or zoned for dense development and to major transportation corridors. Subd. 2. All development standards applicable to the RR district contained in sections 826.17 through Section 826.25, inclusive, shall apply to the RR 1 district, except for as modified by the provisions contained described in section 826.2526, subd. 3 below. Subd. 3. The following provisions shall apply to the RR 1 district: (a) The minimum Side Yard Setback shall be 20 feet, except for structures or buildings used to house, exercise, or accommodate animals as described in clause (b) below. (a)(b) Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals in the RR 1 district shall be subject to the following: (a) (i) All structures shall be set back at least 75 feet from all property lines and at least 150 feet from any street or right-of-way; (iib) No structure shall exceed 1,000 square feet of gross floor area; (ciii) All structures shall be of a design which is compatible with the principal structure; (div) No structure shall be erected prior to construction of a principal building; (ev) No structure shall be used to house any type of livestock except horses; (fvi) No structure shall be used to house more than two horses, except that a third horse Ordinance No. ### 2 v2 DATE 2/5/2019 which is the foal of one of said two horses may be kept on the premises for a period not to exceed six months during any 12 month period; and (gvii) The owners of structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals approved pursuant to this section shall comply with the requirements of section 330 of the city code regarding removal of manure. (h) (viii) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a structure or building to house chickens (“chicken coop”) may be erected within 75 feet of any lot line, but may not be erected within 50 feet of any lot line, provided the following standards are met: (i) (1) No person shall keep a rooster or crowing hen unless the chicken coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines. (ii) (2) No person shall keep more than eight chickens unless the chicken coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines. (iii) (3) Chicken coops and/or runs shall be kept clean and in good repair so as to not constitute a nuisance. (iv) (4) A chicken coop located less than 150 feet from a lot line shall not exceed 200 square feet in area. (v) (5) Permit required. No chicken coop of any size may be erected less than 150 feet from a lot line until the owner has received a chicken coop permit. Subd. 4. No RR 1 district shall be created unless it shall be in compliance with all of the following: (a) minimum of 100 contiguous acres; (b) minimum of 30 lots; (c) located wholly or partially within 2,640 feet of an area containing at least 50 lots which do not meet current city standards for lot size or dimensions; (d) located wholly or partially within 2,640 feet of an area zoned UR Urban Residential or MR Multi Family Residential; and (e) located wholly or partially within 2,640 feet of a principal or intermediate arterial roadway, as designated in the city's comprehensive plan. Subd. 5. Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals which exceed 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or are used to house more than two horses may be constructed on any lot so long as they are located at least 150 feet from any property line. Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", No bullets or Ordinance No. ### 3 v2 DATE 2/5/2019 SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this ______day of ______________, 2019. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ______ day of ___________, 2019. Resolution No. 2019-## DATE Member _____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ### an ordinance amending the side yard setback requirements of the Rural Residential 1 zoning district, amending Chapter 8 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publications by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is 3 pages in length; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety: Public Notice The city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance amending the side yard setback requirements of the Rural Residential 1 zoning district. The ordinance reduces the required side yard setback for lots 5 acres or greater in size to 20 feet. Lots under 5 acres in size also require a minimum 20-foot side setback. The full text of the ordinance is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Dated: ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Resolution No. 2019-## 2 DATE 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: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2/22/2019 Project: LR-19-241 – RR1 Side Setback Amendment The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 1/7/2019 1/7/2019 3 Application Y Deposit Transfer Transfer NA $1000–transferred from LR-18-239 Narrative 1/27/2019 1/27/2019 1 Narrative Y Proposed Text 1/15/2019 1/15/2019 3 Ordinance-1/15/2019 Y Proposed Text - Updated 2/5/2019 2/5/2019 3 Ordinance-2/5/2019 Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Planning Commission report 2/6/2019 2 PCReport 10 pages w/ attachments City Council report 2/26/2019 3 CouncilReport 14 pages w/ attachments Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Planning Commission minutes 2/12/2019 PCMinutes 2/22/2019 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 2/12/2019 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Related to the Minimum Side Setback Requirements of the Rural Residential-1 (RR1) Zoning District Finke stated that this request is for a text change to the City ordinance to reduce the side setback of the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) zoning district for parcels over five acres in size from 50 feet to 20 feet. He stated that only three parcels in the neighborhood are over five acres in size and therefore the other homes in that neighborhood already have a 20-foot setback and the change would only apply to those three properties. He stated that some of the larger properties are similar width to the smaller properties in the neighborhood, the only difference is that the property extends further into the wetland. He stated that staff supports this amendment as it will only apply to three properties within the neighborhood and noted that driving through the neighborhood you would most likely not be able to identify the properties that have five acres. Reid opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. No comments made. Reid closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Galzki stated that this seems to be something that will bring the three properties into consistency with the other properties in the neighborhood. Motion by Nester, seconded by Piper, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending the side setback requirement of the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District. Motion carries unanimously. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 10 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 10 LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliicciieess bbyy AArreeaa The following section provides policies for land use designations and is categorized into generalized subsections. The policies for each category as provided below directly support the Community Goals and Land Use Principles. These designations are generalized land uses and are not specific zoning districts. The City will update the zoning ordinance and applicable codes to be consistent with the land use plan and designations identified in this section. The planning process revealed a strong interest in promoting high quality, sustainable development in the City. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for large scale or master plan types of development, regardless of whether they are residential, commercial or mixed-uses will be available and will be supported through zoning. RRuurraall DDeessiiggnnaattiioonnss The rural designations include Agricultural, Rural Residential and Future Development Area. A large percentage of the community falls into these categories. The purpose of these designations is to provide low-intensity land uses, such as rural residential, farming, hobby farms, horticulture, conservation of natural and ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. This area will not be provided with water or sewer service during the timeframe covered by this Plan. A significant segment of this area consists of large, rural parcels with single-family homes. The City recognizes that such low-density, development will continue to be a desired housing alternative. The City's goal is to maintain the rural character of this area. The Metropolitan Council System Statement shows the majority of this area as Diversified Rural, and the City utilizes the Rural Residential designation to be consistent with the System Statement. The Metropolitan Council has identified a significant portion of Medina’s rural area in the Long-term Sewer Service Area (LTSSA) for the Blue Lake wastewater facility. The Metropolitan Council designates the LTSSA for the possibility of extension of urban services in the long-term, beyond 25 years in the future. Medina is required to identify the LTSSA in its Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA is identified in Map 5-5. The Metropolitan Council states that the LTSSA is intended to provide opportunities to efficiently extend urban services to accommodate long-term growth. The City believes that much of this area does not support efficient extension of urban services and the City seeks opportunities to remove property from the LTSSA. The following factors affect the efficiency of providing future urban services and are displayed on Map 5-6: • Wetlands, Topography, Regional Parks and Scientific Areas Wetlands occupy a significant portion of the area identified by the Metropolitan Council within the LTSSA, accounting for approximately 40% of the area. This fact, along with topographical conditions, would make the provision of wastewater service inefficient. In Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 11 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 11 addition, Baker Park and the Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area occupy large portions of Medina’s rural area, further separating any developable areas. • Historical development patterns Much of the LTSSA was developed with large-lot residential neighborhoods prior to the Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA designation. These properties tend to include large homes with comparatively high home values, making the likelihood of redevelopment with urban services costly. The Metropolitan Council seeks density lower than 1 unit per 10 acres for efficient extension of wastewater service. As evidenced on Map 5-6, the vast majority of the LTSSA within Medina has been previously developed in a pattern that is denser than 1 unit per 10 buildable acres. As a result, much of the LTSSA does not provide opportunity for efficient extension of wastewater service by the Metropolitan Council’s policy. • Distance between regional infrastructure and City infrastructure The Metropolitan Council would need to extend wastewater service into the southern area of Medina if development were to occur in the future. The City’s primary municipal water system is in the northern portion of Medina. One of these services would need to be extended a great distance in order to be provided in connection with the other, or the City would need to establish a separate water system. Either alternative would be costly and would not be efficient. In discussions with Metropolitan Council staff, the City has identified approximately 730 acres to be removed from the LTSSA in the southern portion of the City, because a similar acreage in the northwest corner of the City was added to the Blue Lake wastewater facility service area. The City will continue to seek opportunities to remove property from the LTSSA because of the factors noted above. The City’s Open Space Report proposes several different implementation techniques for allowing open space development and planning to maintain rural character and simultaneously preserve significant natural resources. This result may take the form of innovative developments that clusters smaller lots on larger parcels with permanently conserved open space. Such innovative arrangements can help preserve the City’s natural resources, open space and rural character, while still maintaining an average overall density of ten acres per unit. Medina’s wetlands, lakes, scattered woodlands and soil conditions prevent smaller, unsewered lot development, but are ideal for low-density rural housing. Medina's policy in the permanent rural area is to keep strict soil requirements for septic sites, but allow flexibility for Open Space design developments and to ensure that the permanent rural area will remain rural by eliminating the need for future extension of a sanitary sewer service to replace failing systems. Objectives: 1. Allow low-density development in the Rural Residential Area including innovative arrangements of homes that preserve open space and natural resources. 2. Encourage conservation of open space, farms and ecologically significant natural resources in the rural areas. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 12 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 12 3. Enforce stringent standards for the installation and maintenance of permanent, on-site sewage disposal systems. 4. Allow public facilities and services, such as parks and trail systems, if compatible with rural service area development. 5. Allow land uses, such as home-based businesses, hobby farms, horse stables, nurseries and other smaller-scale rural activities, which will not conflict with adjoining residential development. 6. Regulate noise, illumination, animals, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. 7. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per forty acres for property in the Agricultural land use. 8. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for new development in the Rural Residential and Future Development Area land use. 9. Consider exceptions to maximum density standards for open space developments that protect natural features and put land into permanent conservation. Within the Metropolitan Council’s long term sewer service area (reference Map 5-5), these exceptions will be allowed to result in development with a density in excess of one unit per ten gross acres if consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s Flexible Residential Development Guidelines. 10. Urban services will not be provided to the Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Future Development Area land uses during this planning cycle. 11. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands and other significant natural characteristics. 12. Require that lots contain adequate soil types and conditions as defined in the City's on-site septic system requirements. 13. Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is not compromised. 14. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible by applying low impact design standards and encourage innovative materials and plans that reduce runoff. 15. Encourage and incentivize landowners to participate in the protection and conservation of significant natural resources. Hello Neighbors, We moved from 365 Lakeview Drive, Medina to 3240 Carriage Drive, Medina at the end of May 2018. We absolutely love our neighborhood, new neighbors, our property, and our home, and are for the most part, settled in. The week after we closed on the sale of our home, we called the city of Medina to find out what the setbacks for building on our property were. We drove to our new house, do measured the yard, and unfortunately realized that if we built a non-attached, new garage within code of zone RR1, we would “get” an eight to ten foot-wide garage. We felt disappointed. Although we do not own more than two vehicles, we do own a UTV (side- by-side), an aluminum trailer, and a riding lawn mower, and because of the size and structure of our existing attached garage, we realized some of these items would have to stay in the yard for a while until we found a new plan. Although we have a sizeable yard to manage and enjoy, the majority of our acreage is wetlands and woodlands, so although we do have a property that is larger than 5 acres, we estimate about 1 acre is “usable,” or does not contain wetlands or is thickly wooded. We also have a mound system on this “usable” portion of our yard, which makes selecting a building space for the garage even more limiting. These facts, combined with the 50-foot setbacks of our property led us to meet with Dusty at the City of Medina. After finding out that our property is only one of three properties of all the homes on Carriage Drive, Bridal Path, and a few on Elm Creek that is larger than 5 acres, we are asking that the setbacks for properties of over 5 acres in zone RR1 change to 20 feet from 50 feet. We are not asking that the setbacks of any other homes’ properties in Medina outside of zone RR1 change; because changing the setback zoning from 50 feet to 20 feet would only pertain to/affect two properties besides ours, we thought this seems a reasonable request for the neighborhood we live in. Most of the homes in our zone (RR1) have additional garages and/or outbuildings already, and we have also seen two of our neighbors build garages within less than a year that are larger than what we would like to build. Having a second garage on our property makes sense in our neighborhood, would not look out of place, and would allow us to store items that we would ultimately use to keep our property looking nice, and allow us to enjoy it more. Thank you for your consideration! Christine and Brian Raskob Resolution No. 2019-## DATE Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-## RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD THE WOODS OF MEDINA PLAT; AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2018-44 WHEREAS, on July 17,2018, the city of Medina adopted Resolution 2018-44, granting final approval to 4412 JKP LLC (the “Applicant”) of the plat of Woods of Medina; and WHEREAS, under the terms of said resolution, the plat was required to be recorded with Hennepin County within 180 days of adoption of the resolution or the approval was to be considered void, unless a written request for time extension is submitted by the Applicant and approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested an extension of time to meet the terms and conditions of approval and to record the plat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The plat shall be recorded with Hennepin County by March 5, 2020 or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for time extension is submitted by the Applicant and approved by the City Council. 2. Except as explicitly stated above, all terms and conditions of Resolution 2018-44 are hereby reaffirmed. Dated: . Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Agenda Item # 9A Resolution No. 2019-## DATE 2 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: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 March 5, 2019 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: February 28, 2019 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – March 5, 2019 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) RR1 side setback amendment – Brian and Christine Raskob, owners of 3240 Carriage Drive, have requested that the City consider reducing the minimum side yard setback in the RR1 zoning district for lots over 5 acres in size from 50 feet to 20 feet. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the February 12 meeting and recommended approval. The item is scheduled for review at the March 5 City Council meeting. B) Theisen Riding Arena CUP – 3325 County Road 24 – Scott and Chantelle Theisen have requested a CUP for construction of a barn and indoor riding arena. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the February 12 meeting and recommended approval. The item is scheduled for review at the March 5 City Council meeting. C) 764 Aster Road Easement Vacation – Toll Brothers has requested that the City vacate an existing drainage and utility easement and replace it 3 feet to the north. This would allow construction of a deck. A public hearing is scheduled for the March 5 City Council meeting. D) Maxxon Variance/Site Plan Review – 920 Hamel Road – The City Council approved a site plan review for an addition at Maxxon back in 2018. At that time, the applicant had proposed pervious surfacing in the parking lot to offset the added hardcover for the addition. The City and applicant have been in discussions about potentially making alternative improvements to the site to capture the runoff into the Hickory Drive pond project. The applicant has now requested a variance from the 25% hardcover limitation in the Elm Creek shoreland district to invest in the alternative site improvements rather than pervious bituminous. The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to review at the March 12 meeting. E) School Lake Nature Preserve CD-PUD Amendment – Wally and Bridget Marx have requested an amendment to the CD-PUD to shift the location of one of the lots in the development. Staff has conducted a preliminary review and requested additional information. The item is scheduled for a public hearing at the March 12 Planning Commission meeting. F) Raskob Elm Creek Addition – 500 Hamel Road – The John W Raskob Trust has requested to subdivide the 8 acres (approximately 4 net acres) of property into two separate parcels so that the family could market the two separately. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and the application will be presented to the Planning Commission when prepared, potentially at the April 9 meeting. G) Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition/OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate company for OSI) has requested approval of a site plan review, preliminary plat and rezoning to construct a 2nd building north of their existing facility. The applicant proposes to construct the building on a separate lot and to rezone the property to Business, in line with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Council adopted approval documents on November 7. The applicant has now requested final plat approval. The applicant has also proposed some slight adjustments to the site plan, which are scheduled to be presented to the Planning Commission on March 12. Staff will present to Council when ready. H) Richardson Lot Combination – PIDs 18-118-23-24-0116 and 18-118-23-24-0117 – Big Island Land LLC (Dale Richardson) has requested a lot combination of two vacant parcels along Ardmore Avenue, just west of County Road 19. The parcels do not meet relevant lot Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 March 5, 2019 City Council Meeting standards and the applicant desires to combine them to construct a single home. The application is currently incomplete, and staff has requested additional information. Staff will schedule when complete for review. I) Ditter Concept Plan – Jim Ditter, Tom Ditter, and Ditter Properties have requested review of a concept plan related to the potential subdivision of four existing parcels totaling approximately 25 acres into five lots. The application will be left open in case the Ditters have additional information to provide in the coming months. J) Johnson ADU CUP, Maxxon, Dykhoff Septic Variance, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. K) Woods of Medina, Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded Other Projects A) Rezoning for consistency with 2040 Comp Plan – The Planning Commission held a public hearing on an ordinance rezoning 35 parcels of land which were identified by staff to be consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan. At the hearing, many comments were received about the rezoning of two parcels at CR116 and Meander Road, and the Commission recommended zoning to Commercial-Neighborhood. The Planning Commission wanted to further consider an owner’s request in the northwest corner of the City for a Rural Business Holding designation rather than Rural Residential-Urban Reserve. The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council consider the land use designation of two smaller parcels in the southwest corner of the City currently designated for High Density development. The owner has now requested a lower density designation. Following these discussions, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance, excluding 5 parcels in the Northwest corner of the city proposed to be rezoned RR-UR. B) Tolomatic Administrative Site Plan Review – Tolomatic has requested approval of a site plan review to expand its parking lot at 3800 CR 116. The site plan has been approved and staff will work with the applicant on conditions of approval. C) Three Rivers Park Administrative Site Plan Review – Three Rivers Park has proposed to demolish and reconstruct a number of buildings within the Baker Park campground. It appears that the total square footage of the structures would not increase within the campground. Review is underway. D) Uptown Hamel – a group of students at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs has agreed to research and make recommendations to support improvements and development in the Uptown Hamel area. Open Houses are scheduled for Saturday March 2, Wednesday March 6, and Monday March 11. TO: City Council FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety, Through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: March 1, 2019 RE: Police Department Update Suicide Prevention On Monday February 26th our department was invited to a presentation sponsored by the Hamel and Plymouth Fire Departments on PTSD and suicide of first responders. Eight members of the Medina Police attended the presentation. The speaker, Scott Geiselhart, gave a personal testimony of his battle with PTSD, his attempted suicide and recovery. There are more suicides of first responders then there are of on duty deaths. The presentation was well done. I think everyone there could relate to what Mr. Geiselhart went through and would be able to recognize the signs and symptoms of PTSD. Recognizing the signs and symptoms of PTSD is the first step to prevention. Snow! Snow! Snow! February 2019 set the record for the most snow in the month of February ever since records were kept in Minnesota. We have seen the results. Many schools closing and traffic issues in the area. We have avoided serious accidents, but we had many accidents. With March here, we are all looking forward to spring. We are hoping it will be a slow melt to avoid flooding. Severe Weather Sirens I was notified last month that our severe weather siren in Morningside Edition had failed and it will need to be replaced soon. The electrician informed me that the siren is from the mid- 60s and the motor is on its last leg. We have four of these vintage sirens in the City. Replacement amounts are allocated on the CIP. We will need to develop a plan to replace them over the next few years. Lake Area Emergency Management Meeting On February 28th I attended the Lake Area Emergency Management meeting in Long Lake. The group is working on an exercise for 2019 and discussed the updating of the emergency plan and resource manual. Strategic Fire Meeting The next strategic fire meeting for our Fire Chiefs is on March 18th. In preparation for that meeting, I met with all four Chiefs and distributed the data we have collected on the estimated future cost of fire service for Medina. I asked them to come up with agenda items that they wanted addressed. We will be working through those items at the meeting. MEMORANDUM Patrol Updates Training – On February 26, 2019, Officer Boecker conducted annual use of force refresher for the entire department. Which included use of force and the recertification of the taser. Patrol Activities - For the dates of February 12 to February 26, 2019, our officers issued 47 citations and 93 warnings for various traffic infractions. There was a total of 6 traffic accidents, 7 medicals, 9 alarms and 2 DWI’s. With the weather that continues to give us grief, our employees are doing a great job patrolling and protecting the citizens. These cold temperatures and snow are not ideal conditions to work in, but we will continue to do our jobs. On 02-13-19, I took a report from a local business who had terminated an employee and were concerned about the safety of the rest of the employees due to comments made. It was decided that they would pay for extra police protection during business hours. All the officers stepped up and worked overtime to cover the shifts. On 02-15-19, Officer McGill and Boecker were dispatched to Target for a theft in progress. Upon arrival, they were able to apprehend a shoplifter. The party was issued a citation and released. On 02-17-19, Officer Converse responded to a vehicle in the ditch. Upon arrival, the female driver was found to be intoxicated and was subsequently arrested. On 02-19-19, I took a report of a theft of packages. Victim reported that while out of town there were several packages that were delivered and left on the front steps. When they arrived home, they found some of the packages missing. On 02-20-19, Officer Scharf stopped a vehicle for following too close. The driver was found to have over 200 grams of THC infused product that he had hidden in the back seat under a coat when the officer was pulling him over. The driver was arrested, and the case was turned over to the drug task force for charging. On 02-22-19, Officer Scharf took a theft report from the Target liquor store. It was learned that the suspect has been very active in stealing from Target liquor stores all over the metro. Case was forward to investigations. On 02-22-19, Officer Gregory and Scharf, were dispatched to a shoplifting in progress at Target. Upon arrival, the suspect had already been apprehended by Target security and detained. The suspect was issued a citation for theft and released at the scene. Investigations Update Completed annual refresher training for use of Force and Taser at Medina PD on 02/26. Attended a presentation at the Medina Entertainment Center on PTSD. Lots of good information. I had been investigating a forgery case the last few months. I received some information recently from an administrative subpoena. This case is now considered a civil issue. I sent a letter to the victim advising them of this information. Two open cases through Hennepin County Child Protection. Waiting to hear from the case workers to set up interviews with families. Sent a theft case to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office for felony charges. The theft involved a former employee of a business. Conducting a background investigation for the Community Service Officer position. There are currently (5) cases assigned to investigations. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: February 28, 2019 MEETING: March 5, 2019 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • Public Works has been very busy with snow removal. When we are not plowing fresh snow, we are pushing back to make room for more. We have had some concerns from our residents regarding where the snow is placed, but it is necessary to make space as we move into the month of March. • Public works will continue to push back snow in intersections and from around fire hydrants as time allows. This is a long process with thousands of hydrants to clear. • Bid packets have been opened for our road materials and will be in the March 19th packet. • The roads are moving around a lot this year due to a rainy fall season and extreme cold weather. It will be some time until they get back to normal and it is expected that there may be a significant amount of cracking. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • All is well with the water and sewer systems as we move into the last stretch of winter. However, as we move into spring, we will most likely see problems as the ground begins to thaw and shift around. • Jim Stremel and I are working towards removal of inflow and infiltration from the sewer system. If you recall, we have a surcharge attached to our system from the Met Council for an exceedance a few years back. • Katrina has been working with our control consultant to extract the data from the Hamel Water SCADA system which can now be done remotely, in order to meet the DNR’s reporting requirements. • We have completed the Water Conservation Report which is due at the end of March. We will be putting an educational piece in the spring newsletter about water conservation. PARKS/TRAILS • We have an Eagle Scout candidate who has agreed to do the dugout installation at the Hamel Legion Park. We are scheduling a time for him to meet with city staff and HAC in the next few weeks since the February Parks Commission meeting was cancelled, due to weather. As soon as weather permits, the construction and installation of the benches and dugouts will begin. • The sledding hill is in good condition and full of activity when temperatures permit. Page 2 of 2 MISCELLANEOUS • We have posted the Foreman job internally this week. We have at least one qualified employee within our department who has expressed interest. • The brush and compost site has been cleaned up, and the chips hauled away. There was a cost for the removal this time, but it was minimal, considering the service they provide. • Katrina is working on the details for Clean Up Day and the updated fees are listed in the packet for approval. ORDER CHECKS FEBRUARY 20, 2019 – MARCH 5, 2019 048494 REUTER WALTON COMMERECIAL .................................... $22,219.52 048495 THATCHER ENGINEERING INC ............................................ $1,120.00 048496 AIN, QIRATUL ........................................................................... $250.00 048497 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN ................................... $33,769.55 048498 KRAMER, BRYAN/JESSICA ........................................................ $71.13 048499 MN RURAL WATER ASSOC ..................................................... $275.00 048500 NATIONAL CHARITY LEAGUE INC .......................................... $250.00 048501 RUDOLPH, CLAUDIA .................................................................. $11.42 048502 SHREEJI LLC ............................................................................ $460.00 048503 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY .................................................. $1,938.57 048504 AKHTAR, YASMIN ..................................................................... $285.00 048505 FATHIMA, ARJUMAN ................................................................ $250.00 048506 HAMEL SNORUNNERS ............................................................ $300.00 048507 JP SALEA GROUP .................................................................... $250.00 048508 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY ................................................. $192.38 048509 WE CAN RIDE, INC ................................................................... $250.00 048510 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC .................................................... $79.50 048511 APPLIED CONCEPTS INC ........................................................ $219.00 048512 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $7,197.81 048513 CARGILL INC. ........................................................................ $6,550.48 048514 CORE & MAIN LP ...................................................................... $688.85 048515 DPC INDUSTRIES INC .............................................................. $603.48 048516 EARL F ANDERSEN INC ....................................................... $1,551.60 048517 ECM PUBLISHERS INC ............................................................ $466.99 048518 FINANCE AND COMMERCE ......................................................... $4.00 048519 FIRST SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INC ...................................... $330.00 048520 GRAINGER............................................................................. $1,987.89 048521 HACH COMPANY ...................................................................... $905.74 048522 HAMEL LUMBER INC .................................................................. $89.81 048523 HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES LL .............................. $1,575.00 048524 HENN COUNTY CORRECTIONS .............................................. $335.00 048525 HENN COUNTY INFO TECH .................................................. $2,246.96 048526 HIGHWAY 55 CORRIDOR COALITION ..................................... $250.00 048527 HOLIDAY FLEET ......................................................................... $23.58 048528 JIMMY'S JOHNNYS INC ............................................................ $130.00 048529 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED .................................... $6,740.00 048530 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR .................................................. $408.00 048531 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES .............................................. $40.00 048532 MARCO INC ................................................................................ $12.46 048533 MEDTOX LABS ........................................................................... $50.00 048534 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ................................................. $32,076.54 048535 MN SAFETY COUNCIL INC ...................................................... $250.00 048536 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ...................................................... $652.29 048537 NELSON ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR .................................. $4,582.24 048538 OFFICE DEPOT ........................................................................ $324.35 048539 OIL AIR PRODUCTS LLC ............................................................ $58.16 048540 PLEAA ......................................................................................... $35.00 048541 ROGERS RADIATOR REPAIR .................................................. $129.95 048542 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC .................................. $7,718.72 048543 S & S TREE SPECIALISTS .................................................... $3,554.77 048544 ST PAUL STAMP WORKS INC ................................................... $73.90 048545 STREICHER'S ........................................................................... $850.97 048546 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL ............................................................ $1,346.86 048547 TEGRETE CORP .................................................................... $1,314.00 048548 TIMESAVER OFFSITE .............................................................. $366.25 048549 TRANZPORT PRODUCTS .......................................................... $59.75 048550 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR ..................................................... $315.00 048551 UFC FARM SUPPLY ..................................................................... $5.99 048552 WESTERN ELECTRIC .............................................................. $152.00 048553 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE ................................................ $107.19 048554 WSB & ASSOCIATES ........................................................... $18,753.00 Total Checks $167,105.65 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS FEBRUARY 20, 2019 – MARCH 5, 2019 004981E PR PERA .............................................................................. $16,642.81 004982E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $17,069.78 004983E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $2,170.00 004984E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,995.54 004985E SELECT ACCOUNT ............................................................... $1,380.02 004986E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $20.00 004987E MINNESOTA, STATE OF ....................................................... $1,504.00 004988E FURTHER .............................................................................. $2,491.38 004989E MARCO (LEASE) ....................................................................... $540.80 004990E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $431.80 004991E CITY OF PLYMOUTH ................................................................ $880.37 004992E XCEL ENERGY .................................................................... $11,400.93 004993E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ...................................... $2,236.17 004994E VALVOLINE FLEET SERVICES .................................................. $49.47 004995E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. .............................................. $1,153.30 004996E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE .................................................. $3,018.81 004997E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $304.99 004998E AFLAC ....................................................................................... $375.36 004999E FURTHER ................................................................................. $779.19 Total Electronic Checks $66,444.72 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT FEBRUARY 20, 2019 0509259 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,530.27 0509260 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,385.47 0509261 BELLAND, EDGAR J. ............................................................. $2,820.58 0509262 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,399.34 0509263 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $2,098.54 0509264 DINGMANN, IVAN W. ............................................................. $2,117.69 0509265 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $2,219.83 0509266 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,402.99 0509267 GALLUP, JODI M. ................................................................... $1,832.12 0509268 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $2,203.65 0509269 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................ $2,154.73 0509270 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,324.21 0509271 JACOBSON, NICOLE ................................................................ $951.30 0509272 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. .......................................................... $2,475.72 0509273 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,206.31 0509274 JONES, KATRINA M............................................................... $1,376.01 0509275 KIESER, NICHOLAS.................................................................. $596.83 0509276 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,427.48 0509277 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $2,219.94 0509278 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,979.51 0509279 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,193.23 0509280 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,637.63 0509281 PETERSON, DEBRA A. .......................................................... $1,885.55 0509282 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $2,364.48 0509283 ROBBINS, MELISSA ................................................................. $765.96 0509284 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $2,081.16 0509285 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,501.97 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $54,152.50